Skip to main content

Full text of "The tradition of Scripture; its origin, authority and interpretation"

See other formats 


r 


THE  WESTMINSTER  LIBRARY 

A  SERIES  OF  MANUALS  FOR  CATHOLIC 
PRIESTS  AxND  STUDENTS 


EDITED  BY 

The  Right  Rev.  Mgr.  BERNARD  WARD 

PRESIDENT   OP   ST.   EDMUND'S   COLLEOK, 
AND 

The  Rev.  HERBERT  THURSTON,  S.J. 


"  The  Word  of  God  is  not  bound."— 2  Tim.  ii.  9. 

"  Let  us  seek  therefore  n  our  own,  and  from  our  own,  and  con- 
cerning our  own  :  and  that  only  which  can  be  brought  into  question 
without  touching  the  rule  of  faith." — Tertull.,  De  PrcBscript. 

"  Read  the  Divine  Scriptures  often ;  yea,  never  be  the  sacred 
volume  laid  out  of  hand ;  learn  that  which  thou  teachest ;  let  the 
discourse  of  the  priest  be  seasoned  with  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures." 
— St.  Jerome  to  Nepotian. 

"  All  Holy  Scripture  should  be  read  in  the  spirit  in  which  it  was 
written. " — The  Imitation  of  Christ. 


THE    TRADITION    OF 
SCRIPTURE 

ITS  ORIGIN,   AUTHORITY  AND 
INTERPRETATION 


BY 

Very  Rev.  WILLIAM  BARRY,  D.D. 

CANON    OF   ST.    chad's,  BIRMINGHAM,   AND    RECTOR   OF    ST.  PETER'S,  LEAMINGTON 

SOMETIME   SCHOLAR   OF   THE   ENGLISH    COLLEGE,    ROME;     FORMERLY 

PROFESSOR    OF   THEOLOGY   IN    ST.    MARY's    COLLEGE,    OSCOTT 

AUTHOR   OF   "THE    PAPAL   MONARCHY,"    ETC. 


ST.   BASIL'S  SGHOLASJLCA'U 


■/ 


^^7  <?>  '^ ////?/ 


No. 


LONGMANS,     GREEN,     AND     CO. 

39    PATERNOSTER    ROW,   LONDON 

NEW   YORK,    BOMBAY,    AND   CALCUTTA 

1908 


llihil  (Dbttat 


GuLiELMUs  H.  Kent,  O.S.C, 
Censor  Deputatus. 


GuLiELMUs  Propositus  Johnson, 
Vicarius  Genera  lis. 


West  HON  AST  ERii, 

die  10  Augusti,  1903. 


Ipt-imprtmatnr. 

>J<  GuLiELMUs  Episcopus  Arindelensis, 
Archiepiscopi    Westmonast.  Auxiliaris. 


Die  24  Aprilii,  1908, 


OscoTT  College, 
Birmingham,  22nd  April,  1908. 

My  Dear  Canon, 

I  have  read  very  carefully  all  the 
proposed  alterations  and  additions  for  the  forth- 
coming edition  of  Tke  Tradition  of  Sc7'ipture, 
and  not  only  are  they  free  from  anything  to 
which  theological  exception  could  be  taken,  but 
they  will  even  enhance  the  utility  of  the  volume 
by  putting  Catholic  students  of  Scripture  in  pos- 
session of  the  latest  pronouncements  of  the  Holy 
See  on  that  subject. 

Believe  me, 
Very  sincerely  yours, 

J.  McINTYRE, 

Censor  Deputatus. 


EDITORS'  PREFACE 

This  series  of  Handbooks  is  designed  to  meet 
a  need,  which,  the  Editors  believe,  has  been 
widely  felt,  and  which  results  in  great  measure 
from  the  predominant  importance  attached  to 
Dogmatic  and  Moral  Theology  in  the  studies 
preliminary  to  the  Priesthood.  That  the  first 
place  must  of  necessity  be  given  to  these 
subjects  will  not  be  disputed.  But  there  re- 
mains a  large  outlying  field  of  professional 
knowledge  which  is  always  in  danger  of  being 
crowded  out  in  the  years  before  ordination,  and 
the  practical  utility  of  which  may  not  be  fully 
realised  until  some  experience  of  the  ministry 
has  been  gained.  It  will  be  the  aim  of  the 
present  series  to  offer  the  sort  of  help  which  is 
dictated  by  such  experience,  and  its  develop- 
ments will  be  largely  guided  by  the  suggestions, 
past  and  future,  of  the  Clergy  themselves.  To 
provide  Textbooks  for  Dogmatic  Treatises  is 
not  contemplated — at  any  rate  not  at  the  outset. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  pastoral  work  of  the 
missionary  priest  will  be  kept  constantly  in 
view,  and  the  series  will  also  deal  with  those 
historical    and    liturgical    aspects    of    Catholic 


VI  EDITORS'  PREFACE 

belief  and  practice  which  are  every  day  being 
brought  more  into  prominence. 

That  the  needs  of  English-speaking  countries 
are,  in  these  respects,  exceptional,  must  be 
manifest  to  all.  In  point  of  treatment  it  seems 
desirable  that  the  volumes  should  be  popular 
rather  than  scholastic,  but  the  Editors  hope 
that  by  the  selection  of  writers,  fully  competent 
in  their  special  subjects,  the  information  given 
may  always  be  accurate  and  abreast  of  modern 
research. 

The  kind  approval  of  this  scheme  by  His 
Grace  the  Archbishop  of  Westminster,  in  whose 
Diocese  these  manuals  are  edited,  has  suggested 
that  the  series  should  be  introduced  to  the 
public  under  the  general  title  of  The  West- 
minster Library.  It  is  hoped,  however,  that 
contributors  may  also  be  found  among  the 
distinguished  Clergy  of  Ireland  and  America, 
and  that  the  Westminster  Library  will  be  repre- 
sentative of  Catholic  scholarship  in  all  English- 
speaking  countries. 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE 

Were  the  Bible  lost,  it  has  been  said  with  not 
more  energy  than  truth,  we  might  recover  its 
text  from  the  writings  of  our  CathoHc  Fathers 
and  mediaeval  Schoohnen.  Their  works,  which 
fill  great  libraries,  are  made  up  to  a  large  extent 
of  commentaries  on  Scripture,  and  are  every- 
where steeped  in  its  language  and  ideas.  Be- 
ginning with  St.  Clement  of  Rome,  St.  Justin^^ 
St.  Irenaeus,  TertuIlFan,  and  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria,— from  about  95  a.d.  to  the  first  decade 
of  the  third  century, — we  find  the  Old  Testa- 
ment quoted  in  all  parts  of  the  Church,  and 
the  New  gradually  acknowledged.  Clement 
of  Alexandria  was  Orig-en's  master  ;  and  that 
highly  gifted  man  (t2  54),  whose  very  mistakes 
and  extravaofances  were  due  to  a  zeal  for  the 
faith,  spent  his  life  in  transcribing  the  Bible  (see 
what  is  left  of  his  Hexapla)  or  in  its  defence  and 
exposition.  The  African  Church,  if  it  did  not 
produce,  yet  received  from  an  early  date  (before 
200  A.D.)  the  Old  Latin  Version  celebrated  by 
Tertullian,  used  by  St.  Cyprian  and  St.  Augus- 
^e.  Turning  to  the  Eastern  Church,  we  per- 
ceive that  the  Septuagint  was  familiar  to  all  its 


viil  PREFACE 

divisions  from  the  Apostles'  days  ;  the  labours 
of  Euseblus  of  Csesarea  (260-340)  in  publish- 
jugHcopies  of  the  New  Testament  are  well 
known ;  St.  Athanasius  in  Egypt,  SS.  Basil, 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  in  Asia 
Minor,  St.  Cyril  at  Jerusalem,  were  constant 
readers  of  the  Bible,  and  employed  it  on  every 
occasion  to  defeat  the  rising  heresies.  Like 
Alexandria,  the  Syrian  capital  Antioch  be- 
came a  school  of  Scripture  exegesis,  from  which 
proceeded  St.  John  Chrysostom  (f  407),  Theo- 
doret,  and  the  Nestorians,  whose  "  Great  Com- 
mentator "  was  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia.  But 
the  Nestorians  were  opposed  by  St.  Cyril  of 
Alexandria,  and  his  tomes  consist  of  a  theology 
drawn  from  Holy  Writ. 

The  golden  age  of  Antioch  lies  between  400 
and  450.  Its  earlier  stage  was  contemporane- 
ous in  the  West  with  St.  Jerome  (about  340- 
420)  and  St.  Augustine  (354-430).  To  the 
spiritual  and  dogmatic  sense  of  Scripture  the 
controversies  of  his  time  led  St.  Augustine,  who 
did  not  cultivate  the  apparatus  of  criticism.  But 
St.  Jerome  was  a  critic  in  the  modern  sense. 
Well  nigh  forty  years  (from  382)  were  con- 
sumed by  this  indefatigable  pen  in  translating 
the  originals  from  Hebrew  and  Greek  into 
Latin,  correcting  the  old  version  where  it  could 
not,  for  liturgical  reasons,  be  given  up,  and  ex- 
plaining the  text  as  it  stood.  St.  Jerome  is  the 
literalist,  St.  Augustine  the  dogmatist,  St.  Chry- 
sostom the  ethical  teacher,  who  excel  the  rest  of 


PREFACE  ix 

Antiquity  and  under  whose  guidance.  Holy 
Scripture  has  ever  since  their  time  been  inter- 
preted by  orthodox  Christians. 

For  the  Middle  Ages  St.  Gregory  the  Great, 
St.  Bernard,  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  and  St.  Bona- 
venture  are  representative  men.  But  the  un- 
dying merit  of  those  thousand  years  consists  in 
the  fact  that  by  devout  monks  and  nuns  the 
very  words  of  Scripture  were  preserved  to  us 
in  beautijul  manuscripts  sucliLajs,  towards  their 
close,  on  the  eve  of  the  Renaissance,  Thomas 
a  Jvempis  left  for  our  use  and  admiration. 
Gatholic  doctrine  stayed  itself  on  the  Bible  ; 
preaching  went  back  to  it  ;  Missal  and  Brevi- 
ary, Pontifical  rites  and  Papal  documents  and 
Canon  Law  were  efforts  on  a  grand  scale  to 
digest  its  teachings  and  apply  them.  Catholic 
art  drew  its  favourite  subjects  from  Holy  Writ ; 
the  literature,  proverbs,  and  daily  conversation 
of  all  classes  during  this  long  period,  show  that 
Christians  were  familiar  with  its  narratives  in  a 
striking  degree.  From  the  paintings  which  are 
still  extant  in  Roman  Catacombs  to  the  mosaics 
of  St,  Mark's  Venice  or  the  Cappella  Palatina 
in  Palermo  ;  from  the  Primitive  religious  schools 
of  Siena,  Florence,  Cologne,  Holland  ;  as  well 
as  from  every  phase  of  ecclesiastical  architecture 
down  to  the  "  Bible  of  Amiens"  and  the  frescoes 
of  the  Sistine,  it  is  evident  that  eyes,  mind,  and 
heart  could  take  their  fill  of  the  inspired  story. 
Learning  and  sanctity  wielded  pen,  pencil,  chisel, 
brush,  every  instrument  which  conveys  thought 


X  PREFACE 

or  evokes  beauty,  in  order  that  God's  written 
word  should  be  known  and  loved.  The  Middle 
Ages  had  their  Bible  in  stone,  on  illuminated 
parchment,  in  stained  glass.  It  was  delivered 
from  the  lips  of  popular  preachers,  reflected  in 
the  poetry  of  the  Heliand^  of  Dante,  of  Fra 
jacopo,  expounded  on  the  walls,  gates,  and 
pavements  of  innumerable  Churches.  It  was 
recited  in  monasteries  day  and  night,  quoted  in 
Parliaments,  rhymed  and  sung  by  minstrels,  so 
that  never  perhaps  was  it  more  universally 
known. 

The  oldest  version  in  a  Western  vernacular^ 
though  not  complete,  was  the  Maeso-Gothic 
of  Ulfilas  (311-381).  No  other  goes  back  be- 
yond the  eighth  century.  The  earliest  appear  to 
be  Old  English, — St.  Aldhelm  and  King  Alfred 
translated  the  Psalter  ;  Ven.  Bede  the  Gospel 
of.  St.  John,  Aelfric  the  Pentateuch  and  various 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  Gospels  were 
frequently  rendered  into  English.  It  is  certain 
that  many  portions  of  Scripture  were  read  in  the 
different  French  dialects  long  before  the  com- 
plete translations  under  St.  Louis„IX.  (about 
1250)  and  Charles  V.  (t  1380),  Guyars  des 
Moulins  gave  a  famous  rendering  of  the  Vulgate 
historical  books  between  1 291-1297.  Germany, 
like  France  and  England,  had  its  rhyming  para- 
phrases ;  but  its  version  of  the  Gospels  was,  it 
would  appear,  ancient,  perhaps  of  ninth  century  ; 
while  Notker  (t  1022)  and  Abbot  Williram 
(t  1085)  were  responsible  for  the  Psalms      Be- 


PREFACE  XI 

tween  1200- 1500  many  partial  German  versions 
saw  the  light.  X)anes,  Swedes,  Norwegians  had 
their  own  texts  more  or  less  complete.  SS. 
^yril  and  Methodius  founded  the  Slavic  Bible 
in  the  ninth  century.  To  Alfonso  V.  in  1270 
_the_Spanish  version  is  attributed  by  Mariana  ; 
the  first  printed  Spanish  Bible  (1478)  follows  a 
rendering  of  Bonifaz  Ferrer  (f  141 7),  brother 
oFSt.  Vincent.  The_earHest  Italian  translation, 
according  to  Sixtus  of  Siena,  came  from  the 
hand  of  Jacobus  de  Voragine,  author  of  the 
Goldeii  Legend,  and  Archbishop  of  Genoa 
CLl2-98)j  the  printed  copy,  edited  by  Malermi 
at  Venice,  1471.  went  through  nine  impressions 
before  1500.  The  Ji ungarians  received  Psalms, 
Sunday  Gospels  and  Epistles  soon  after  their  con- 
version ;  the  whole  Bible  was  done  into  Magyar 
by:_L.  Bathyani  (t  1456).  St.  Hedwige,  Queen 
of  _.Poland,  set  on  foot  a  Polish  translation  to- 
wards the  end  of  thirteenth  century,  parts  of 
which  still  remain.  In  the  fifteenth  century 
Bohemian  codices  of  Scripture  were  plentiful. 
After  printing  was  invented,  the  first  German 
Bible_camG  out  in  1462  ;  twenty  editions  of  the 
whole  followed  down  to  1520  in  Upper  Ger- 
many, four  in  Lower.  Ninety  Plenaria  (Sunday 
Gospels  and  Epistles),  fourteen  Psalters,  two 
Apocalypses  must  be  added. 

All   this  vast  literature   was  founded  on  the 

Latin  \'ulgate,  though  in  the  second  half  of  the 

thirteenth    century    an   attempt    was   made   by 

some   English    scholars   to    translate    from    the 


xil  PREFACE 

original  Hebrew.  The  Franciscans  appear  to 
have  Ijeen  especially  interested  in  this  move- 
ment. Their  Roger  Bacon  suffered  on  its 
behalf ;  his  friend,  William  de  Mara  (it  is 
thought),  was  author  of  a  "  Correctorium,"  based 
on  the  Massorah  ;  and  Nicholas  de  Lyra,  who 
was  a  sound  Hebrew  scholar,  as  well  as  a 
severe  literalist,  came  from  the  Friars  Minor 
(t  1340).  But  critical  studies  were,  in  those 
days,  premature.  Returning  to  thie  Vulgate, 
we  observe  that  no  fewer  than  ninety-eight 
complete  editions  were  printed  between  1456 
and  1500.  Haifa  dozen  folio  impressions  were 
sent  out  before  a  sino-le  Latin  classic  found  its 
way  into  type.^ 

The  Reformation,  which  traced  its  pedigree 
from  Waldensians,  Wycliffe,  and  the  Hussites, 
brought  in  fresh  clangers  to  the  unlearned,  and 
made  use  of  Scripture  that  it  might  overthrow 
the  Church.  A  new  discipline  as  regarded  study 
of  the  Bible  was  set  up  by  the  Council  of  Trent 
(sess.  iv.,  v.),  which,  however,  did  not  forbid 
the  reading  or  translation  of  Scripture  in  the 
vulgar  tongue.  But  the  Index  of  Paul  IV.,  the 
Spanish  Inquisition,  and  the  secular  authorities 
were  unfavourable  to  freedom.  Paul  IV.  pro- 
hibited all  translations  ;  Pius  IV.  relaxed  this 
rule,  and  Benedict  XIV.  (1757)  allowed  them  if 
under  lawful  authority  made  and  issued.  Pius 
VI.   gave  solemn  approval  to  the  new  Italian 


'  Malou,    Led.  de  la  S.  Bible ;    Comely,  Introd.  Gen.,   480-84 ; 
Cambridge  Mod.  Hist.,  i.  590-91,  639,  640. 


PREFACE  xiii 

rendering_Q£.31artIni,  Archbishop  of  Florence 
(1226- 1 781).  In  Spanish  dominions  an  exacr- 
gerated  view  of  the  Vulgate  had  been  widely- 
prevalent.  Yet  vernacular  translations  continued 
to  api:>ear.  Tlie_. French  of  Le  Fevre  d'Etaples 
(1523-1528)  was  corrected  by  Louvain  theo- 
logians in  1550,  and  reprinted  more  than  fifty 
times  down  to  1700;  other  French  Catholic 
versions,  but  some  tinged  with  Jansenism  (De 
Sacy,  corrected  by  Dom  Calmet,  O.S.B.  ;  Ques- 
nel's  New  Testament  condemned  in  the  Bull 
Unis;e7iitns  by  Clement  XI.,  etc.),  bring  us  on 
to  the  Bible  de  Vence,  and  in  recent  times  to 
that  of  y.  B.  Glaire,  which  last  is  now  the  one 
in  use,  with  Roman  approbation  for  the  New 
Testament.  The  English  Douay  Bible  and 
Rheims  New  Testament  (latter,  1582  ;  both 
Testaments,  1609)  have  a  long  and  compli- 
cated history,  which  cannot  be  given  here. 
The  Bohemian  Catholics  read  a  text  issued  by 
the  Jesuit  Fathers  at  Prague  in  1677  ;  the 
Poles  have  a  version  dated  Cracow,  1599,  with 
approval  of  Gregory  XIV.  and  Clement  VIII. 
New  Spanish  and  Portuguese  versions  were 
undertaken  shortly  before  the  French  Revolu- 
tion (the  former  by  Scio,  1790- 1794  ;  the  latter 
by  Pereira,  1 778-1 794).  Among  Germans,  the 
New  Testament  of  Beringer  is  dated  1526  ;  Die- 
tenberger's  "  Catholic  Bible "  was  the  common 
text  during  nearly  two  centuries  ;  and  various 
others  appeared.  But  the  version  now  favoured 
is  chiefly   that  of  Allioli,   which   translates    the 


xiv  PREFACE 

Vulgate  and  marks  original   Hebrew  or  Greek 
readings  in  the  notes.  ^ 

As  regards  textual  criticism,  it  may  be  noted 
that  Origen's  parallel  Old  Testament  was  a 
mighty  effort  in  this  direction.  St  Jerome  had 
Hebrew  texts  before  him  older  by  centuries 
than  the  Massoretic  which  we  now  possess ;  and 
hk  Greek,  by  which  the  Latin  New  Testament 
was  revised,  probably  contained  readings  superior 
in  age  to  those  of  our  Sinaitic  and  Vatican  MSS. 
Of  the  Complutensian  Polyglot,  printed  in  15 14, 
it  has  been  said  :  "No  praise  is  too  high  for  the 
design  of  Ximenes  ;  and,  as  regards  the  execu- 
tion, it  is  doubtful  whether  the  best  scholarship 
of  all  Europe,  had  it  been  mustered  at  Alcala, 
could  have  produced  a  much  better  result ". 
The  Septuagint  which  it  reproduced  was  not 
from  the  most  correct  sources.  In  1587,  under 
Sixtus  v.,  the  LXX.  appeared  at  Rome,  from 
the  Vatican  MS.,  which  edition  held  its  ground 
until  quite  recently.  It  ought  not  to  be  for- 
gotten that  the  Hebrew  text  of  Soncino  (1477- 
1488)  came  out  with  episcopal  approbation  ;  and 
that  the  Rabbinic  Bible,  published  by  Felix 
Pratensis  at  Venice  in  15 17,  was  dedicated  to 
Leo  X.  The  Fathers  of  Trent  had  been  de- 
sirous that  a  critical  edition  of  the  Vulgate 
should  be  taken  in  hand.  This  difficult  enter- 
prise, spread  over  thirty  years  and  more,  was 
brought  to  an  issue  in  the  Sixtine  and  Clemen- 

'  Cornely,  tit  supra,  484-89 ;  Vigouroux,  Man.  Bib.,  i.  261  ;  for 
Douay  Bible,  see  Essays  by  Wiseman  and  Newman ;  also  Pref.  to 
St.  Luke  by  Ward. 


PREFACE  XV 

tine  Bible  (1590- 1592),  but  scholars  now  de- 
mand a  recension  which  may  avail  itself  of  all 
modern  facilities  and  appliances.^ 

These  historical  observations  will  suffice  to 
prove  that  Holy  Church  has  always  kept  the 
written  Word  in  her  hands,  while  meditating  on 
its  divine  sense.  A  large  volume  would  be  re- 
quired if  we  were  simply  recording  the  names 
and  works  of  modern  commentators,  among 
whom  Maldonatus,  Estius,  Cornelius  a  Lapide, 
Calmet  hold  eminent  positions.  But"ithas  never 
been  the_C_atholic  teaching  that  for  every  one  to 
r^ad__Hply  Scripture  is  of  obligation  ;  and  to 
maintain  that  without  such  general  reading  the 
Faith  cannot  be  truly  apprehended,  or  eternal 
life  secured,  is  a  doctrine  so  remarkable  that  few 
can  seriously  believe  in  it,  though  often  urged  for 
controversial  ends.  At  the  same  time,  a  devout 
study  of  the  sacred  writings,  with  prayer  and 
humble  submission  to  the  ofuardians  of  the  faith, 
has  been  highly  commended  by  the  Fathers,  as 
by  spiritual  guides  like  Thomas  a  Kempis  ;  and 
in  our  days  Leo  XIII.  has  bestowed  on  the 
daily  practice  of  it  indulgences  from  the  Church's 
treasury.  St.  Augustine,  indeed,  reminds  us^ 
that  a  Christian  may  be  perfect  in  faith,  hope 
and  charity,  who  is  yet  unlearned  in  the  Bible. 
But  St.  Jerome,  considering  the  duty  of  teach- 1 
ers,  lays  it  down  that  "  he  who  knows  not  the 
Scriptures  knows  not  the  power  and  wisdom  of  J 
God".  I   Leo  XIII.  concludes  ;  "  It  is  our  wish 

^  Cambr.  Mod.  Hist.,  i.  602-4  ;  Comely,  ttt  supra,  460-80, 

O 


XVI  PRBFA  CE 


and  desire  that  those  especially  whom  God's 
grace  has  called  to  holy  orders,  should  spend 
more  and  more  diligence  and  industry  on  the 
reading,  meditation  and  exposition  of  Holy 
Writ".i 


The  present  little  sketch  is  offered  as  an  aid 
to  our  hard-worked  clergy,  to  students  in  our 
Seminaries,  and  to  Catholic  laymen  who  would 
fulfil  these  admonitions  of  the  Fathers  and  the 
Church.  Its  limits  do  not  allow  many  points 
of  interest  to  be  touched  upon ;  scarcely  does 
it  contain  more  than  the  outlines  or  elements 
of  an  inexhaustible  subject.  For  lack  of  space 
the  Conciliar  and  Papal  documents  are  not 
quoted  at  length  ;  they  must  be  sought  in  the 
well-known  collections.  The  Latin  Vuleate 
should  be  always  at  hand.  It  is,  in  substance, 
translated  in  our  "  Douay  "  Bible  ;  but  of  this 
work  the  text  has  undergone  so  many  revisions 
that  we  cannot  now  look  upon  it  as  a  single 
authorised  edition,  and  its  verbal  composition 
is  far  from  stereotyped.  Translations,  accord- 
ingly, in  the  following  pages  are  not  uniform  ; 
reasons,  literary  or  critical,  have  determined 
their  particular  use  ;  and  they  must  always  be 
compared  with  our  Vulgate  readings.  It  is 
particularly  recommended  that  all  Scripture 
references    not    quoted    m   exteiiso   should    be 


>  Aug.,  De  Doct.  Christ.,  i.  43  ;  Jerome,  in  Ua,  Prolo?.  :  Leo  XIII., 
Provid.  Dens. 


PREFACE  xvii 

looked  out.  Whatever  is  taken  from  non- 
Catholic  sources,  whether  as  regards  text  or 
interpretation,  stands  on  its  own  merits,  and  is, 
of  course,  only  approved  so  far  as  it  agrees  with 
orthodox  tradition,  or  is  compatible  with  it. 
References  in  the  notes  do  not  in  any  way 
signify  that  the  present  writer  holds  opinions 
thereby  indicated.  Original  quotations  from  He- 
brew, Greek,  or  German  not  entering  into  the 
scope  of  this  volume  are  omitted.  But  it  has 
appeared  desirable  that  the  common  English 
forms  of  Scriptural  names  should  be  retained, 
to  facilitate  research  and  in  accordance  with 
Archbishop  Kenrick's  usage.  When  more  than 
one  is  given,  it  follows  the  Greek  as  well  as  the 
Hebrew. 

Between  diverse  and  contendinor  views  the 
writer  has  not  presumed  to  judge,  wherever  it 
seemed  to  him  that  authority  left  them  free. 
Should  his  language  at  any  time  sound  too 
categorical,  he  beefs  it  will  be  taken  as  not 
meaning  more  than  literary  emphasis.  He  has 
endeavoured  to  suggest,  so  far  as  he  was  ac- 
quainted with  them,  opinions  held  by  Catholic 
scholars  who  by  their  learning,  piety,  and  station, 
are  among  approved  commentators  on  Holy 
Scripture.  But  there  was  less  need  to  quote 
the  more  ancient,  whose  sentiments  are  familiar 
to  us,  than  contemporaries,  and  especially  such 
as  have  combined  with  textual  erudition  or 
archaeological  research  an  inquiry  into  the  dog- 
matic bearing  of  criticism,  as  it  is  now  handled. 


xvui  PREFACE 

What  we  require  most  of  all,  it  would  appear,  is 
exactly  to  grasp  and  carefully  to  systematise  our 
new  knowledge.  If  anything  shall  be  done  to 
help  a  consummation  so  much  sought  after,  by 
the  fragmentary,  yet  as  he  hopes  not  altogether 
inaccurate,  review  which  is  here  attempted,  the 
author  will  bear  more  patiently  with  its  many 
imperfections.  He  cannot  but  observe  that  cer- 
tain of  the  latest  conjectures,  both  as  regards 
the  history  of  Israel  and  the  relation  of  our 
Lord's  teaching  to  the  Church's  dogma,  seem, 
after  his  best  efforts  to  understand  them,  so 
impossible  to  reconcile  with  Christian  principles, 
that  he  has  left  them  untouched.  For  the  proved 
results  of  sound  textual  criticism,  confirmed  as 
they  often  have  been  by  discoveries  in  archaeo- 
logy, we  cannot  but  feel  grateful  to  Providence. 
And  no  less  when  the  monuments,  thus  brought 
out  of  darkness  into  light,  correct  the  hasty 
views  of  some  scholars,  too  apt  in  their  libraries 
to  picture  the  world  of  which  our  documents 
bear  record,  as  though  it  were  like  their  own. 
Documents  and  monuments,  fairly  treated,  illus- 
trate one  another  ;  they  help  us,  when  duly  com- 
bined, to  a  deeper  acquaintance  with  the  truth 
which  our  sacred  writers  have  wished  to  con- 
vey ;  and  the  lesson  of  a  well-balanced  Higher 
Criticism  cannot  fail  to  be  edifying. 

Hearty  thanks  are  due  to  the  Rev.  W.  H. 
Kent,  O.S.C.,  who  has  not  only  read  these 
pages  in  his  quality  of  Censor  with  indulgence, 
but  has  contributed  valuable  references  to  Tal- 


PREFACE  xlx 

mudic  and  Patristic  sources.  Other  friends 
have  kindly  furnished  volumes  which  were  not 
accessible.  Father  H.  Thurston,  S.J.,  has  given 
much  time  amid  his  pressing  duties  to  the  proof- 
sheets  and  references,  greatly  to  the  advantage 
of  the  book  and  its  compiler.  From  the  ever- 
growing bibliography  a  selection  has  been  made 
in  proportion  to  the  aims  that  were  throughout 
kept  in  view  of  exhibiting  the  latest  orthodox 
criticism,  and  at  the  same  time  indicating  the 
trend  of  recent  discussions  outside  the  Church. 
Should  thought  or  language  fail  to  harmonise 
with  accredited  Catholic  teaching,  it  is  before- 
hand retracted  and  disowned. 

WILLIAM  BARRY. 


Dorchester,  Oxford, 

Aug.   5,  1905. 

hi  Festo  Stce  Marice  ad  Nines. 


ADVERTISEMENT  TO  SECOND 
EDITION 

Since  these  pages  were  issued  the  Holy  See 
has  dealt  with  various  questions  touching  Holy 
Scripture,  by  answers  through  the  Biblical  Com- 
mission of  which  the  substance  will  be  found  in 
its  place  ;  likewise  by  the  Syllabus  of  condemned 
propositions,  "  Lamentabili,"  dated  July  3,  1907  ; 
and  in  the  Encyclical  Letter  of  Pope  Pius  X., 
"  Pascendi  dominici  gregis,"  of  September  8, 
1907.  A  commission  has  been  appointed  to 
collect  materials  for  revisingf  the  Vulgate  text. 

All  that  follows  here  must  be  construed  in  the 
light  of  these  authoritative  documents,  to  which 
every  Catholic  owes  submission.  The  writer 
would  lay  stress  yet  again  on  his  attitude  towards 
opinions  reported,  as  being  purely  that  of  one 
who  describes  them  without  interposing  his 
private  judgment,  or  taking  on  him  the  respon- 
sibility which  those  have  to  sustain  that  put  them 
forward.  Outside  the  directions  of  the  Holy 
See  it  has  been  neither  his  wish  nor  his  purpose 
to  travel.  Accordingly,  he  professes  in  particular 
no  views  regarding  authorship,  composition,  dates, 


XXII     ADVERTISEMENT  TO  SECOND  EDITION 

or  contents  of  any  part  of  Scripture  which  go 
beyond  what  has  been  laid  down  by  the  Church's 
teaching,  whether  in  Conciliar  decrees  or  in  Papal 
and  Roman  utterances.  The  rest,  in  what  way 
soever  quoted,  is  merely  ad  eruditionem ;  it  is 
matter  for  learning,  not  the  subject  of  assent. 

To  the  Very  Rev.  Canon  Mclntyre,  D.D., 
Professor  of  Holy  Scripture  at  St.  Mary's  Col- 
lege, Oscott,  special  acknowledgments  are  here 
tendered,  as  to  an  old  friend  and  pupil,  for  his 
great  kindness  in  reading  over  the  revised  sheets 
and  giving  them  his  "  Nihil  Obstat ".  Of  course, 
it  is  well  understood  that  in  doing  so  Canon 
Mclntyre  does  not  make  himself  answerable  for 
any  of  the  views  put  forward  by  private  persons, 
or  by  the  author  (if  such  there  be),  in  matters 
open  to  discussion. 

Some  improvements  are  made  in  the  biblio- 
graphy, owing  to  suggestions  which  have  reached 
me  from  various  friendly  sources.  Changes  have 
also  taken  place  in  the  text  to  provide  for  the 
terms  of  those  recent  decisions  by  which  Catholics 
are  bound  to  be  guided.  The  concluding  para- 
graphs which  deal  with  the  Pentateuch  and  St. 
John's  Gospel  exhibit  their  chief  points;  other 
verbal  alterations  follow,  so  as  to  bring  the  whole 
up  to  the  present  time.  No  new  space  has  been 
allotted  to  criticism  of  the  destructive  method 
or  the  rationalistic  principles  which  certain  late 
writers  have  borrowed  from  Protestant  sources, 
and  which  the  Supreme  Pontiff  has  condemned 
For  the  rule  of  faith  with  which  these  methods 


ADVERTISEMENT  TO  SECOND  EDITION   xxiii 

cannot  be  reconciled,  is  drawn  out  in  the  first 
twenty-seven  pages ;  and  in  the  Preface  (xviii) 
they  were  discarded  by  anticipation. 

WILLIAM  BARRY. 


St.  Peter's,  Leamington, 
Easter,  1908. 


CONTENTS 


tAOE 

Preface ,        ,        .        .    vii 

Introduction i 

The  Catholic  Bible — The  Fathers  on  Tradition — Westerns — 
Eastern  Fathers'  Witness — Significance  of  this  Testimony 
— As  Regards  the  Canon — And  the  True  Sense  of  Scrip- 
ture— The  Decisions  of  Trent — How  they  bear  on  Critical 
Science — Limits  to  Consent  of  Antiquity — Prophetic  Sense 
and  the  Letter — The  Bible  an  Eastern  Book — Its  Method 
a  Development — Not  Hazard  but  Miracle — Inspiration 
and  Prophecy. 

Section  I.    Origins,  Authors,  Canon  of  Old 
Testament. 

CHAPTER  I. 

Tradition  and  the  Critics 28 

Our  Three  Problems  —  The  Latin  Vulgate — St.  Jerome's 
Labours — The  Seventy — The  Massorah — Hebrew  Canon 
Fixed — Questions  of  Authorship — Canon  of  Ezra,  Nehe- 
miah,  Maccabeus — Authorship  and  the  Fathers — Historical 
and  Literary  Tests. 

CHAPTER  II. 

Pentateuch  or  Hexateuch  ?  .  .  .  ,  .  .  .44 
Beginnings  of  Modern  Views — Theories  of  Reuss,  Graf,  Well- 
hausen — Documents  JED  P — The  Argument  from  His- 
tory— The  Literary  Analysis — Diatessaron  as  Parallel  to 
Hexateuch — Moses  the  Original  Author — Objections  to 
the  Modern  Theories — Krypsis  or  Kenosis  ? — Recent  De- 
cisions. 


xxvi  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  III. 

PAGE 

The  Earlier  Prophets 62 

First  Law  of  Israel — As  in  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings — Elohist  and 
Jahwist — Editors  of  Genesis-Kings — Book  of  Joshua — 
Judges  or  Champions — Deductions  from  its  Critical  His- 
tory— Book  of  Ruth — Samuel  i.-ii. — Kings  i.-ii. — Scheme 
of  Chronology — Truth  and  Candour  in  these  Documents. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Later  Prophets 77 

Great  Divisions  of  O.  T. — Composition  of  Isaiah — Arguments 
for  Several  Authors — More  Complete  Analysis — Schools  of 
the  Prophets  —  Summing  up — Book  of  Jeremiah  —  The 
Prophet's  Share  in  it — Analysis  of  its  Contents — Origin 
and  Date  of  Lamentations — Baruch  and  the  Epistle — Pro- 
phecy of  Ezekiel — Its  Divisions  and  Character — Ezekiel's 
Relation  to  Hexateuch — The  Minor  Prophets — Towards  a 
Religion  of  Humanity. 

CHAPTER   V. 

Psalms,  Hebrew  Wisdom,  Haggadah gg 

Third  Jewish  Canon— Ketubim — Accadian  Hymns — Ewald's 
Division  of  Psalms — The  Davidic  Elements — Objections 
Answered — Use  of  Divine  Names — Five  "  Books  of  Solo- 
mon " — The  Book  of  Proverbs — Ecclesiastes  or  Koheleth 
— The  Song  of  Songs — Views  of  Ewald,  Gesenius,  etc. — 
Poem  or  Parable  of  Job  ? — Narrative  and  Colloquies — 
Ruth  Again — The  Story  of  Esther — Free  Handling  in 
Hagiographa — The  Problem  of  Daniel — From  Porphyry 
onwards — Difficulties  of  the  Language — Replies  by  Con- 
servative School — Cyrus  in  Babylon — The  Maccabean 
Horizon — Daniel  the  First  Apocalypse — Midrashim  of 
O.  T. — Chronicles  as  a  Great  Instance — Probable  Order  in 
Ezra-Nehemiah — Post-Exilic  History  and  P.  C. 

CHAPTER  VL 

Books  of  the  Second  Canon 126 

The  Antilegomena  O.  T. — Greek  Book  of  Wisdom — Ben  Sira  or 
Ecclesiasticus — Prophecy  of  Baruch — Tobit  and  its  Ques- 
tions— Judith — History  and  Midrash  in  Maccabees — 
These  Writings  and  the  Canon — No  List  in  the  Bible 
itself — LXX.  and  N.  T.  recognise  Larger  Canon — Quota- 
tions in  Fathers — Polemical  Usage  and  Doubts — Canon- 
ical—  Ecclesiastical  —  Apocryphal  —  The  West  and  St. 
Jerome — African  Councils  and  Roman  Decisions — Private 
Views  are  not  Tradition — Mediaeval  Opinions — Florence 
and  Trent. 


CONTENTS  xxvii 

Section  II.    Canon  of  the  New  Testament. 
CHAPTER  VII. 

PAGE. 

The  Synoptic  Gospels 144 

Immediate  Pre-Christian  Literature — Critical  Questions  of  N.  T. 
— The  Canon  and  the  Message — Oral  Teaching  Came 
First — Earliest  Witnesses :  Papias,  St.  Justin  Martyr, 
Tatian,  Theophilus,  Pseudo-Barnabas,  St.  Ignatius  of  Anti- 
och — Testimony  of  Heretics — Conclusions — Muratorian 
Fragment — First  Canon  N.  T. — St.  Irenaeus  of  Lyons — 
Confirmed  by  the  Versions — Relation  of  Gospels  to  Cate- 
chesis  and  Each  Other— The  Older  Views — Dogmatic 
Certitudes — The  Synoptic  Problem — A  Prevalent  Theory 
— Aramaic  Matthew  Earliest — Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Rome, 
Ephesus — Identities  and  Differences. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  Fourth  Gospel  and  St.  John 160 

Voices  of  Tradition — What  the  Gospel  Implies — Papias  and 
Polycarp — Occasion  of  i  Epistle  John — Cerinthus — Early 
Docetism  a  Proof — Justin  M. ;  Heracleon,  Theodotus — 
In  Muratorian  Canon— Apocalypse  by  Whom? — Objec- 
tions to  Unity  of  Authorship — Some  Answers  to  Difficul- 
ties— Contrast  between  Fourth  and  Other  Gospels — Truth 
of  the  History  in  St.  John — Decii-ions  and  Inferences. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Acts,  Epistles,  Apocalypse 172 

Gospels  =  Pentateuch  ;  Epistles  =  Prophets — Place  and  Date 
of  Acts  —  Arguments  for  Late  Origin  —  Reconciliation  of 
Passages,  Luke  and  Paul — St.  Luke,  First  Christian  Apolo- 
gist— Order  of  Pauline  Writings  —  Fixed  and  Disputed 
Points — Church  always  Received  Thirteen  Epistles — Re- 
cent and  Extreme  Guesswork — It  Strengthens  the  Ancient 
Position— Judgment  of  Tertullian  and  Origen — Evidence 
between  95  and  170  a.d. — Paley's  Horn  PaulincE — The 
Epistles  severally  —  Romans — i  Corinthians — 2  Corin- 
thians— Galatians — i,  2  Thessalonians — The  Christology 
of  St.  Paul — Relation  of  Ephesians  to  Colossians — Why 
the  Language  Novel — Philippians — Last  Group — Pastoral 
Epistles  —  Difficulties  and  Answers — To  the  Hebrews  — 
Pauline  Ideas  and  Substance — The  Catholic  Epistles — St, 
James — St.  Peter  and  St.  Jude — Johannme  Letters — The 
Book  of  Revelation. 


xxviii  CONTENTS 

Section    III.   Authority   and    Interpretation 
OF   Holy  Writ. 

CHAPTER  X. 

PAGE. 

The  Divine  Origin  of  Scripture 200 

The  Inspired  Record — Internal  Witness  not  Adequate — The 
Spirit  and  His  Influence — His  Manifold  Operations  — 
Growth  of  Prophecy — the  Narrow  School — From  Ecstasy 
to  Spiritual  Insight — Prophecy  Tends  to  Become  Litera- 
ture— Inspiration  not  always  Revelation — The  Bible  and 
other  "  Sacred  Books  " — Jewish  Ideas  of  Inspiration — 
Church  Definitions. 

CHAPTER  XI. 

The  Human  Instrument 212 

Spirit  and  Word  of  God — Economies  of  Divine  Light — This 
Doctrine  is  Catholic— Method  of  Allegory — Obiter  Dicta  ? 
— Schools  of  Exegesis — Antioch — Phases  of  St.  Jerome — 
St.  Augustine  and  St.  Thomas — Leo  XII i.  sums  up  the 
Tradition  —The  Living  Mind -Sons  of  their  Time — Post- 
Reformation  Views — Inspiration  not  Mechanical — Sense 
not  Words  directlylnspired — "  Plenary  "Inspiration —  Com- 
patible with  Human  Weaknesses — Freedom  of  Opinions 
and  Schools — The  Tridentine  Teaching  —  Inerrancy  of 
Scripture  —  Limits  of  Inspired  Statements — Holy  Scrip- 
ture a  Great   Deep. 

CHAPTER  XII, 

Literal,  Spiritual,  Accommodated  Sense  of  the  Bible  .  231 
The  Hebrew  Mould — Three  Ways  of  Interpretation — Hal- 
achah  —  Haggadah  —  Midrash  —  Immediate  and  Remote 
Fulfilment  —  Philonic  and  Neo-Platonist  Methods  —  So 
briety  of  N.  T.  and  Catholic  Dogma — Kinds  of  Literature 
in  Bible — Selective  Inspiration — This  Method  Determines 
Contents — Not  Allegory  but  Development. 

CHAPTER  Xin. 

Laws  and  Instances  . 240 

Antitheses  of  O.  T.  and  N.  T. — Story  of  Creation  in  Genesis: 
Basil,  Augustine — It  is  Prophecy,  not  Science — Formulas 
of  Concord  —  Periodism  —  Not  Founded  on  Tradition  or 
Science — Semite  Cosmogonies — Parallels  in  Genesis — 
Their  Date — St.  Thomas  on  Truth  of  Gen.  i. — The  "  Tole- 
doth"   of  Adam   and  the   Patriarchs — Paradise   and   the 


CONTENTS  xxix 

Fall  of  Man — Details  Figurative  to  what  Extent? — Sources 
and  Implicit  Quotation — Late  Roman  Decisions — Cases  in 
which  Applicable — Oriental  Conceptions  of  History  and 
Nature — Horizon  and  Advance  in  O.  T. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

PAOE. 

Christ  in  the  Bible 258 

Not  to  Destroy  but  to  Fulfil — Causal  Ideas  are  more  than  Alle- 
gory :  Instance,  Sacrifice — Toleration  of  the  Imperfect — 
Moral  Difficulties — Transient  Forms  in  N.  T. — Our  Lord 
Revealed  Himself  by  Degrees — St.  John  as  Central  Writer 
of  N.  T. — Jesus,  Messiah  and  Logos — Theology  Estab- 
lished on  Scripture — The  Sum  is  This. 

Bibliography 267 

Index 275 


THE    ABERDEEN   UNIVERSITY    PRESS    LIMITED 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  Catholic  Bible. — ^That  collection  of  ancient 
writings  which  we  term  the  Bible,  or  "the  Books,"  by 
reason  of  their  divine  origin  and  religious  authority, 
may  be  defined  as  the  volume  which  the  Catholic 
Church  recognises  to  be  inspired  of  God  and  committed 
to  her  keeping.  Its  two  chief  divisions,  the  Old  and 
^ew  Testaments  (in  Hebrew  strictly  "  Covenants,"  by 
extension  from  2  Kings  xxiii.  21),  are  the  Book  of 
Israel  and  the  Book  of  Christianity.^  But  this  latter 
supposes  and  includes  the  former,  which  leads  up  to  it 
by  a  series  of  historical  events  and  by  the  prophetic 
teaching.  The  whole  forms  a  "  sacred  library,"  deter- 
mined as  regards  its  contents,  limits,  interpretation,  and 
force  of  law,  by  the  Society  which  claims  to  be  at  once 
its  guardian  and  its  exponent.  Such  is  the  Catholic 
Bible  as  we  contemplate  it  in  these  pages. 

Fathers  on  Catholic  Tradition — ^Westerns. — A  few 
citations  from  early  Christian  witnesses  will  bring  out 
our  meaning  more  decisively.  The  Greek  word  "  Bible," 
applied  however  to  the  Old  Testament  only,  occurs  for 
^ffie  first  time  in  a  Homily  ascribed  to  St.  Clement  of 
Rome,  but  dating  more  probably  from  the  )-ears  120- 
140  A.D.  :  "I  do  not  suppose  ye  are  ignorant," 'says 
the  writer,  "that  the  living  Church  is  the  body  of 
Christ ;  for  the  Scripture  saith  '  God  made  man,  male 
and  female".     The  male  is  Christ  and  the  female  is 

* "  Covenant  "  is  a  better  form  than  "  arrangement,"  suggested  by 
Kautzsch  (Hastings,  D.B.,  Extra  Volume,  630),  and  to  be  retained. 


2  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

the  Church.  And  _the  Books  (ra  /SifiXia)  and  the 
Apostles  plainly  declare  that  the  Church  existeth  not 
now  for  the  first  time,  but  hath  been  from  the  begin- 
ning,"^ Again,  St.  I  renc-EUS  of  Lyons  (140-202?):  "Paul 
says  that  '  God  Tiath  set  in  the  Church  first  apostles, 
secondly  prophets,  thirdly  teachers '.  Where,  then,  the 
gifts  of  God  have  been  set,  there  we  must  learn  the 
truth  from  them  with  whom  is  the  succession  from  the 
Apostles.  .  .  .  For  these  guard  our  faith,  both  that 
which  is  towards  God  who  made  all  things,  and  that 
which  is  towards  the  Son  of  God  .  .  .  and  they  ex- 
pound the  Scriptures  to  us  without  peril,  neither 
blaspheming  God,  nor  dishonouring  the  Patriarchs, 
nor  despising  the  Prophets."-  Hence  Irenasus  con- 
demns the  Gnostics  by  turning  to  "  the  rule  of  truth  " 
and  the  tradition  of  the  Churches ;  especially  that  of 
"  the  greatest,  most  ancient,  and  known  to  all,  founded 
and  established  by  two  most  glorious  Apostles,  Peter 
and  Paul  at  Rome.  .  .  .  For  to  this  Church,  on  account 
of  its  more  eminent  primacy,  every  Church,  that  is  to 
say,  those  who  are  everywhere  faithful,  must  have  re- 
sort." Elsewhere  he  insists  that  "  true  revelation  {yvo)cn<i 
aXr]di]<;)  is  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles  .  .  .  according 
to  the  succession  of  bishops  .  .  .  the  full  treatment  of 
the  Scriptures  which  has  come  down  to  us  by  a  guardian- 
ship in  which  there  is  no  guile  ".^  This  great  Bishop, 
who  witnesses  to  one  and  the  same  standard  of  belief  in 
Gaul,  Asia  Minor,  and  Italy,  is  the  defender  of  Catholic 
tradition  against  every  attempt  to  mutilate  or  misinter- 
pret the  Written  Word.  According  to.  his  repeated 
arguments,  the  cJiarisDia  veritatis  cannot  be  divided 
from  the  episcopal  unity  and  the  Apostolic  succession. 

Tertullian  (160-220?),  in  Africa,  handles  the  same 
doctrine  with  characteristic  energy.  His  famous  work, 
•'  On  Prescription  against  Heretics,"  is  intended  to  bar 


^  Clem.  R.,  Ep.  ii.  14 ;  cf.  Daniel  ix.  2,  "  the  books  ". 
'Iran.,  iv.  26,  5.         ^  Ibid.,  iv.  33,  8. 


WESTERN  FA  THERS  3 

|he_usc  of  [;ri\  ate  judgment  where  the  Church  has  once 
_decklccl,  and  to  cut  off  evasions  from  her  rule  of  faith 
^lich  heretics  have  sought  in  the  Scriptures  interpreted 
otherwise  than  as  she  understands  them.  Speaking  as 
a  Cathohc,  he  says  :  "  They  who  affirm  that  the  truth  is 
\\ith  them  must  needs  say  that  the  corruptions  in  the 
Scriptures  and  the  falsities  in  the  expositions  of  them 
have  been  rather  introduced  by  us.  To  the  Scriptures 
therefore  we  must  not  appeal.  .  .  .  For  the  order  of 
things  would  require  that  this  question  should  be  first 
proposed,  'To  whom  belongeth  the  very  Faith  ;  whose 
are  the  Scriptures  ;  by  whom,  and  through  whom,  and 
when,  and  to  whom  was  that  rule  delivered,  whereby 
men  become  Christians  ? '  For  wherever  both  the  true 
Christian  rule  and  Faith  shall  be  shown  to  be,  there 
.will  be  the  true  Scriptures,  and  the  true  expositions, 
and  all  the  true  Christian  traditions."  ^  And,  in  a  later 
section,  "  If  these  things  be  such  that  the  truth  be  ad- 
judged to  belong  to  us  [vi'x;.]  as  many  as  walk  according 
to  this  rule,  which  the  Churches  have  handed  down  from 
the  Apostles,  the  Apostles  from  Christ,  Christ  from 
God,  the  reasonableness  of  our  proposition  is  manifest, 
which  determines  that  heretics  are  not  to  be  allowed  to 
enter  upon  an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures,  whom  we  prove 
without  the  Scriptures  to  have  no  concern  with  the 
Scriptures.  For  if  they  be  heretics,  they  cannot  be 
Christians.  .  .  .  Therefore,  not  being  Christians,  they 
can  have  no  claim  {imllum  jus)  to  Christian  writings." 
Ancl~  in  another  treatise,  "  Who  shall  understand  the 
marrow  of  Scripture  better  than  the  school  of  Christ 
itself,  whom  the  Lord  adopted  as  His  disciples  to  be 
taught  all  things,  and  set  as  masters  over  us  to  teach  us 
all  things  ?  "  - 

St.  Cyprian  of  Cai'thage  (f  258)  who  called  Tertullian 
his  master,  developed  the  idea  of  ecclesiastical  tradition 
as  a  living  whole,  in  which  the  bishops  are  "stewards 

^  De  Prascrip.,  ig.         "^ Ibid.,  27',  Scorp.,  12. 

T    * 


4  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

of  the  Gospel  truth  ".^  St.  Augustine  of  Hippo  (354- 
430)  gathers  up  in  one  sentence  the  principles  on  which 
all  the  orthodox  acted  during  those  early  discussions 
with  heretics,  when  he  exclaims,  "  For  myself  I  would 
not-  believe  the  Gospel  unless  the  authority  of  the 
Catholic  Church  moved  me  thereto".^  Disputing  with 
F'austus  he  observes,  "If  (the  Manichean)  brings  forth 
codices  which  he  declares  to  be  the  work  of  our  Apostles, 
how  will  he  give  them  an  authority  which  he  has  not 
received  from  the  Churches  of  Christ  established  by 
the  Apostles,  so  that  it  may  pass  on  with  firm  ap- 
proval to  after  generations  ? "  On  this  matter  he  is 
never  weary  of  insisting,  and  thus  he  concludes  against 
his  opponents,  "  I  warn  you  that  are  held  captive  by 
so  wicked  and  detestable  an  error,  if  ye  will  follow  the 
authority  of  Scriptures  (to  be  preferred  before  any 
others)  follow  ye  that  which  from  the  time  of  Christ 
has  come  down  by  the  dispensation  of  Apostles  and 
the  assured  succession  of  Bishops  from  their  Sees,  to 
these  times  kept,  commended,  glorified  in  the  whole 
world  ".3 

Writing  in  434  A.D.j  St.  Vincent  of  Lerins  gives 
to  this  dogma  in  his  Connno7iitorium  its  classical  ex- 
pression. He  first  propounds  the  question  which  private 
judgment  would  raise.  "  Here  perhaps  some  one  will 
inquire,  '  Since  the  canon  of  the  Scriptures  is  perfect 
and  more  than  suffices  to  itself  for  all  things,  what 
need  is  there  to  join  with  it  the  authority  of  the 
Church's  mind  ? '  "  To  which  he  makes  answer,  "  Be- 
cause on  account  of  its  depth  all  do  not  take  the 
Scripture  according  to  one  and  the  same  sense  ;  but 
this  man  and  that  man  interpret  it  severally  in  their 
own  fashion  ;  so  that  as  many  men  so  many  opinions 
may  seem  deducible  from   it.     For  Novatian  under- 

^ "  Stewards  of  Gospel  Teaching"  in  De  Aleatoribus,  3,  now  as- 
signed to  Pope  Victor.  Cyprian  (Hartel),  iii.  95,  and  Ep.  59,  5,  17 
in  vol.  ii.     But  see  De  Unit.  Cath.  Eccl.  throughout. 

-Cotttr.  Ep,  Fund.,  5.     ^  Contr.  Faust.,  xiii.  4;  iii.  9. 


EASTERN  FATHERS  5 

stands  it  in  one  way;  Sabellius  after  this  sort,  Donatus 
after  that ;  in  a  different  sense  Arius,  Eunomius,  Mace- 
donius ;  in  another  Photinus,  ApolHnaris,  PriscilHan  ; 
in  another  Jovinian,  Pelagius,  Caelestius  ;  in  another 
last  of  all,  Nestorius."  Remarkable  as  this  catalogue 
of  unlicensed  Bible-critics  may  sound,  it  could  easily 
be  paralleled  and  exceeded  by  modern  instances,  over 
against  which  stands  the  old  and  new  Catholic  Church ; 
since,  as  Tertullian  happily  phrases  it.  "  That  which  zve 
are,  the  Scriptures  are  from  the  beginning  ;  we  are  of 
them,  before  it  was  otherwise  with  them  ".  And  so 
Vincent  concludes,  "  Therefore  it  is  exceedingly  neces- 
sary, because  of  such  great  deviations  of  so  varying  an 
error,  that  the  line  of  prophetic  and  apostolic  interpre- 
tation "should  be  guided  by  the  rule  of  Ecclesiastical 
and  Catholic  sense  ".^ 

Eastern  Fathers'  Witness. — Among  Eastern  wit- 
nesses it  will  be  enough  to  quote  Origen,  Eusebius,  St 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  and  St.  Basil.  Origen,  translated 
by  St.  Jerome,  declares  concerning  true  and  false 
Gospels  current  in  his  days,  "  of  all  these  we  approve 
nothing  but  what  the  Church  approves, — that  only  four 
Gospels  are  to  be  admitted  ".-  Eusebius  (about  264- 
340),  when  he  had  compiled  the  list  of  the  New 
Testament,  obsei^ves,  "  Of  necessity  we  have  made  out 
the  catalogue  of  these  also  [vt'c,  doubtful  books]  having 
discriminated  some  which  were  true  and  unfeigned 
according  to  ecclesiastical  tradition,  and  others  not 
like  those,  etc.".^  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (315-386)  to 
his  catechumens,  "  Carefully  also  learn  from  the  Church 
wiiicli  arc  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  of- 
the.  New.  .  .  .  Those  only  do  thou  meditate  upon  and 
handle  which  we  read  in  the  Church  with  sure  confi- 
dence. The  Apostles  and  ancient  Bishops,  rulers  of 
the^Church,  were  far  wiser  and  more  devout  than  thou 
canst  be,  and  they  have  handed  them  down ;  do  not 

^  Commonitor.,  2.         "Horn.  i.  iu  Luc.         ^  Hist.  EccL,  iii.  25. 


6  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

thou,  being  a  child  of  the  Church,  transgress  the  laws 
established."!  Finally,  St.  Basil  (329-379),  "Without 
unwritten  traditions  the  Gospel  is  an  empty  name  ".^^~~ 
"Such  is  the  position  which  has  always  been  main- 
tained by  Catholic  teachers.  "  He  who  gave  Scripture," 
says  Newman,  "  also  gave  us  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture ;  and  He  gave  the  one  and  the  other  gift 
in  the  same  way,  by  the  testimony  of  past  ages,  as 
matter  of  historical  knowledge,  or  ...  by  tradition." 
But  since  that  tradition  is  Catholic,  it  must  be  Apostolic. 
As  the  separate  succession  of  Bishops  goes  back  to  that 
single  origin,  so  do  the  multiplied  attestations  which 
exhibit  Holy  Scripture  as  left  in  the  Church's  keeping, 
both  in  regard  to  its  contents  and  its  significance, 
"  Private  traditions,"  to  quote  the  same  writer,  "  wander- 
ing unconnected  traditions,  are  of  no  authority ;  but 
permanent,  recognised,  public,  definite,  multiplied,  con- 
cordant testimonies  to  one  and  the  same  doctrine, 
bring  with  them  an  overwhelming  evidence  of  Apos- 
tolic origin."  ^ 

That  the  Canon  of  inspired  books,  which  is  nowhere 
recorded  in  the  Bible,  ought  to  be  ascertained  by  the 
Church's  judgment ;  and  that  no  doctrine  at  variance 
with  Catholic  faith  may  be  gathered  from  those  books, 
is  therefore  a  principle  which  we  can  trace  to  the 
Apostles  themselves.  "  Brethren,  stand  fast,"  says  St. 
Paul,  "  and  hold  the  traditions  which  ye  have  been 
taught,  whether  by  word  or  our  epistle  "  (2  Thess.  ii.  15). 
Thus  Origen  once  more,  "  That  alone  is  to  be  believed 
as  the  truth  which  in  nothing  differs  from  the  ecclesi- 
astical and  apostolical  tradition  ".'*  And  St.  Gregory 
of  Nyssa :  "  It  is  enough  for  demonstration  that  we 
have  a  tradition  coming  to  us  from  the  Fathers,  as  an 
inheritance  by  succession  from  the  Apostles  which  the 
Saints  following  them  have  handed  on  ".^ 

'  Catech.  Illinn.,  4,  33-35.         -De  Sp.  Sane,  27. 
'^  Hist.  Sketches,  i.  381, '"  Primit.  Christianity". 
*De  Princip.,  preface.         '•'Adv.  Eunotn.,  iv. 


QUOD  SEMPER  7 

Significance  of  this  Testimony. — In  this  witness  a 
twofold  strain  should  be  distinf^uished.  First,  it  is 
human  and  historical,  like  any  other  ;  subject  to  cross- 
examination  ;  capable  of  being  confirmed  by  evidences, 
direct  or  indirect,  but  many  and  various,  from  the 
remains  of  antiquity.  Second,  however,  it  is  divine  in 
its  character  and  so  dogmatic ;  /or  .the  Church  that 
offers  it  is  "the  living  body  of  Christ,"  inherits  "the 
mind  of  Christ,"  and  cannot  go  astray  when  she  teaches 
feTigious  doctrine,  of  which  Holy  Scripture  is  the  head 
and  front.  As  judge  and  keeper  of  the  sacred  volume 
the  Church  must  then  be  infalhble.  "  In  which  Book," 
says  St.  Augustine,  speaking  of  the  Acts,  "  it  is  neces- 
sary that  I  believe,  \{  I  believe  in  the  Gospel,  since  the 
authority  of  the  Cathoh'c  Church  commends  both  Scrip- 
tures to  me  in  like  manner."  ^ 

But  5t  Vincent  of  Lerins  warns  us,  "Within  the 
Church  itself  we  are  greatly  to  consider  that  we  hold 
that  which  has  been  believed  everj^where,  always,  and 
of  all  men  ".  We  must  follow  "  universality,  antiquity, 
consent "  '}  In  other  words,  local  or  particular  traditions 
touching  the  Scriptures  (for  with  this  we  are  concerned) 
have  no  binding  power  until,  or  unless,  they  shall  be 
reinforced  by  a  general  acknowledgment  as  Catholic 
truth.  Nay,  more.  An  opinion  may  be  universal  and 
unchallenged,  in  a  given  age  or  series  of  ages,  yet  if  it 
is  not  put  forward  by  authority  as  being  contained  in 
the  original  "  deposit "  of  the  Apostolic  treasury  ( i  Tim. 
vi,  20)  there  is  no  guarantee  that  it  will  not  yield  before 
evidence  contradicting  it.  And  to  ascertain  whether 
so  irrevocable  a  sentence  has  been  uttered  by  those 
who  inherit  the  seats  of  the  Fathers,  is  often  a  delicate, 
sometimes  for  a  while  an  unfulfilled  task.  Examples 
are  not  wanting  of  local  Churches  that,  before  the  Canon 
of  the  New  Testament  was  fixed,  were  in  the  habit  of 
reading  certain  apocryphal   books  as   Holy  Scripture, 

^Contr.  Ep.  Fund.,  6.  "  Commonitor.,  3. 


8  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  the  Pastor  of  Hermas,  and 

other  primitive  though  not  inspired  writings.     Again, 

the  Millenarian  interpretation  of  the  Apocalypse,  which 

we  find  in  St.  Irenasus,  contributed  not  a  little  towards 

discrediting  St.  John's  Revelation  in  the  Churches  of 

the  East.     And  a  third  instance,  perhaps  even  more 

/remarkable,    is    the   almost   unanimous   belief   of  the 

j  Fathers,  to  which  no  theologian   now  would  commit 

himself,  that  those  unknown  men  who  translated  the 

Hebrew  Bible  into  what  is  called  the  Septuagint,  were 

/    inspired  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

From  these  and  the  like  episodes  it  seems  to  follow 
that  a  tradition,  however  widespread,  if  unquestioned 
and  therefore  untested,  need  not  represent  that  "  mind 
of  the  Church"  whereby  we  are  secured  from  error. 
It  may  appear  to  have  "  universality  and  antiquity  "  in 
its  favour,  but  something  more  is  required  if  it  is  to 
enjoy  the  conscious,  deliberate,  final  "  consent "  of  the 
"school  of  Christ,"  which  will  alone  fence  it  round 
about  with  the  security  of  revealed  truth.  iNot  every 
^tradition  which  happens  to  find  a  place  inside  the 
*  Church  is  that  Catholic  tradition  termed  by  St.  Irenaus 
the  charisma  veritatis.  How  we  shall  discern  the 
difference,  though  no  question  can  be  more  important, 
it  is  not  for  us  here  to  investigate.  Theologians  have 
laid  down  their  rules ;  and  authority,  proceeding  by 
gradual  development  of  terms  and  teaching,  does,  in 
course  of  time,  bring  these  doubtful  matters  to  an  issue. 
Catholics,  assuredly,  mean  by  Tradition  "  the  whole 
system  of  faith  and  ordinances  which  they  have  re- 
ceived from  the  generation  before  them,  and  that  genera- 
tion from  the  generation  before  itself,"  and  so  back  to 
the  Apostles  of  Christ.  And  of  such  an  inheritance 
Holy  Scripture  is  manifestly  a  portion  which  must 
never  be  separated  from  it.  We  cannot  imagine  the 
Bible  without  the  Church,  or  the  Church  without  the 
Bible.  As  a  matter  of  history.  Christians  have  taken 
the  Sacred  Books  for  canonical  and  inspired  because 


AS  REGARDS  THE  CANON  9 

the  "  succession  of  bishops "  declared  that  such  they 
were,  made  out  the  Hst  of  them,  and  ehminatcd  from 
it  apocr>'phal  writings.  ^  All  this  was  not  done  in  a 
day,  but  by  degrees,  yet  always  on  the  same  grounds, 
to  wit,  that  the  Church  in  affirming  her  own  judgment 
was  following  the  Apostles  and  could  not  fall  into  error. 
If  Catholic  Antiquity  had  not  this  privilege  divinely 
bestowed,  or  if  it  made  a  wrong  use  of  its  authority,  no 
means  are  left  us  by  which  to  discover  what  books  are 
contained  in  the  Bible  of  Christians,  whether  Old  Testa- 
ment or  New.  Holy  Scripture  is,  then,  itself  part  and 
parcel  of  Catholic  Tradition. 

As  Regards  the  Canon. — This  conclusion  brings  with 
it  inferences  of  great  moment.  It  relieves  the  private 
judgment  of  individuals  from  the  burden  of  attempting 
to  decide  between  the  Palestinian  and  the  Alexandrian 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  also  between  those 
books  of  the  New,  concerning  which  there  were,  or 
were  not,  doubts  at  any  period  among  believers.  It 
protects  every  recognised  part  of  the  Bible  against  a 
critical  assault  which  would  deny  to  it  the  place  it  has 
secured  in  the  Canon.  It  limits,  not  inquiry,  but  doubt, 
so  far  as  the  Church  owns  any  writing  to  be  Scripture. 
It  will  not  suffer  arguments  from  matter,  style,  dates," 
or  quality  of  composition,  to  overthrow  this  one,  ex- 
ternal but  sufficient,  evidence  that  the  book,  page,  frag- 
ment, is  inspired.  No  internal  examination  may,  for  a 
Catholic,  result  in  dispossessing  of  its  rank  any  passage 
that  has  been  authentically  declared  canonical.  Not 
only  is  the  Bible  closed  to  additions,  it  allows  of  no 
diminutions,  except  by  the  indirect  method  of  showing 
that  certain  alleged  verses  or  sections  never  did  enter 
into  the  genuine  text. 

And  the  True  Sense  of  Scripture. —  In  like  manner 
as  regards  the  sense,  that  is  to  say,  the  meaning  of 
Scripture.  It  is,  and  ever  has  been,  Catholic  dogma 
that  no  interpretation  of  Holy  Writ  is  admissible  which 
runs  counter  to  the  "analogy  of  faith" — in  modern  Ian- 


10  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

guage,  to  the  Church's  consciousness  of  truth  revealed 
and  entrusted  to  her.  Such  "  analogy  "  was  the  original 
significance  of  the  word  "  Canon,"  which  meant  the 
Creed.^  That  Christ's  Church  should  be  merely  the 
guardian,  but  not  the  qualified  exponent,  of  the  Written 
Word  ;  that  the  letter  should  be  under  her  charge,  but 
the  spirit  not  opened  to  her  apprehension  ;  that  she 
should  not  know  what  the  record  teaches,  though  it  is 
in  her  keeping — this  none  of  the  Fathers  would  grant 
whose  testimonies,  cited  above,  vindicate  her  jurisdiction 
against  irresponsible  dealings  with  the  Bible.  Thus 
Vincentagain,  "  How  shall  they  (Catholics  and  children 
of  Mother  Church)  discern  truth  from  falsehood  about 
the  Holy  Scriptures  ?  They  will  be  careful  to  do  that 
which,  as  we  wrote  at  the  beginning,  holy  and  learned 
men  have  delivered  to  us, — they  will  interpret  the  divine 
Canon  according  to  the  traditions  of  the  universal  Church 
and  the  rules  of  Catholic  dogma."  ^  So,  too,  Origen, 
"Whenever  they  (heretics)  put  forward  the  canonical 
Scriptures,  in  which  every  Christian  consents  and  be- 
lieves, they  seem  to  say,  '  The  word  of  truth  is  in  the 
house ' ;  but  we  ought  not  to  believe  them,  or  to  depart 
from  the  primal  and  ecclesiastical  tradition,  or  to  believe 
otherwise  than  as  it  has  been  handed  down  by  the  suc- 
cession of  the  Church  of  God  ".^  Quotations  to  this 
effect  might  be  endlessly  multiplied.  "  To  the  Fathers," 
says  Newman,  "the  idea  of  private  judgment  on  the 
Scriptures  suggests  itself  only  to  be  condemned."  But 
the  course  of  history  will  demonstrate  that  Popes  and 
Councils  have  always  opposed  to  new  doctrines  which 
drew  their  arguments  from  inspired  writings  the  sense 
put  upon  those  verses  or  chapters  by  Antiquity.  And 
that  sense,  being  acknowledged  in  Christian  preaching 
as  alone  orthodox,  was  thereby  conclusive  against  inno- 
vators. Uniform  custom,  guarded  by  the  faith,  estab- 
lished not  only  what  were   the   Scriptures,  but  what 

*  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.,  vil.  i6  ;  Iren.,  i.  9. 
-  Commonitor.,  27.         -^  In  Matt.,  46. 


TRENT  AND  THE  VATICAN  II 

their  meaning  must  be  in  questions  of  dogmatic  im- 
portance. 

The  Decisions  of  Trent. — It  is  now  generally  ad- 
mitted, in  acordance  with  all  this,  that  the  Council  of 
Trent  did  not  betray  Antiquity,  but  gave  expression  to 
its  belief  and  practice,  when  it  forbade  private  persons 
to^  interpret  Holy  Scripture,  "  in  matters  of  faith  and 
morals  belonging  to  the  edification  of  Christian  doctrine," 
contrary  to  that  sense  which  the  Church  holds  and  has 
held,  or  against  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers 
in  their  expositions.  The  Vatican  Council  has  turned 
this  negative  into  an  affirmative  proposition.  That 
sense  of  Scripture  which  the  Church  maintains  is  its 
true  sense;  therefore,  whether  ascertained  by  consent 
of  Fathers  or  otherwise,  it  must  not  be  called  in  ques- 
tion.^ For  our  faith  in  the  Bible,  words  and  meaning, 
is  the  faith  of  the  Communion  of  Saints,  a  deposit,  not 
a  discovery  of  our  own. 

What  limits  are  indicated  by  the  significant  clause, 
"  in  matters  of  faith  and  morals  belonging  to  the  edifica- 
tion of  Christian  doctrine,"  we  need  not  at  present  dis- 
cuss. Let  us  say  merely  that  all  expositions  of  Scripture 
which  deny  what  the  Church  teaches,  in  whole  or  in 
part,  must  be  unsound  and  are  to  be  rejected.  No  one 
who  holds  Catholic  principles  can  refuse  so  manifest  a 
conclusion  from  them.  Hence  arises  the  question  whether 
an  orthodox  believer  is  capable  of  attaining  to  the  genu- 
ine art  or  science  of  criticism.  For  it  would  seem  that 
dogma  has  forestalled  inquiry  in  his  case ;  and  that 
nothing  remains  for  him  but  mechanically  to  echo  the 
decisions  laid  down  by  theologians  and  bound  upon  his 
shoulders  by  anathema.  How  shall  we  meet  this  objec- 
tion ? 

How  Bearing  on  Critical  Science. — First,  it  is  patent 
that  if  critical  science  is  incompatible  with  foregone  cer- 
titudes,  none  could  be  critics   who  did   not  begin  by 

•  Cone.  Vatican,  De  Fide  Cath.,  2  ;  Cone.  Trident.,  sess.  iv. 


12  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

being  sceptics — a  supposition  so  unreasonable  that  it 
falls  by  its  own  weight.  Again,  it  will  now  be  granted 
in  many  quarters  "  that  persons  who  maintain  that  the 
mass  of  Christians  are  bound  to  draw  the  orthodox 
faith  for  themselves  from  Scripture,  hold  an  unreal 
doctrine  and  are  in  a  false  position  "}  But  we  may  say 
as  much  of  scholars  who,  by  a  similar  pretence,  would 
fain  undertake  without  relying  on  authority  and  first 
principles  to  settle  the  text,  discover  its  signification, 
and  write  a  valid  commentary  on  the  Bible  at  large. 
They  cannot  fulfil  their  promise  to  start  unburdened, 
any  more  than  the  open  dogmatiser ;  it  is  certain  that 
they  never  have  attained  their  object.  Would  there  be, 
in  fact,  any  difficulty  whatever  in  showing  that  the 
critics  who  throng  various  modem  schools,  proceed  just 
as  much  as  tlie  Catholic  or  Lutheran  or  Socinian  of  a 
former  day,  on  assumptions  which  govern  their  handling 
of  the  Hebrew  and  Christian  Testaments  ?  If  criticism 
requires  that  we  discard  first  principles,  to  be  a  critic  is 
impossible.  And  if  it  does  not,  that  those  principles 
sbould  be  warranted  by  a  Church  need  be  no  hindrance 
to  the  investigations  and  reasonings  of  which  critical 
science  is  made  up.  Assumptions,  in  every  case,  do 
control  its  method  and  guide  its  conclusions.  From 
this  point  of  view  all  who  take  the  Bible  for  their  study 
are  on  the  same  footing. 

But  the  Catholic  has  this  advantage.  He  is  restrained 
from  indulging  recklessly  the  temptation  to  conjecture 
and  to  revolutionise  which  besets  all  those  who  deal  in 
minute  problems  of  literature  and  archaeology.  He  is 
not  allowed  to  forget  that  religious  truth  may  be  vio- 
lated by  his  guessings,  and  the  revealed  word  of  God 
thrust  aside  in  favour  of  textual  amendments  so  flimsy 
that,  when  they  in  turn  are  discredited,  the  world 
wonders  how  they  ever  came  to  be  approved.  The 
VIS  inerticB  of  dogmatic  decisions  has  for  its  effect  a 

1  Newman,  Via  Media,  i.  150. 


MODERN  CRITICS  13 

stability  in  preservinf^  the  text,  as  well  as  its  meaning, 
both  of  which  would  lie  othenvise  at  the  mercy  of  that 
caprice  which  finds  perhaps  the  wildest  play  in  literary 
erudition.  Tg_withstand  the  vagaries  iaf  Gnostics  in 
the  second  "century,  it  was  requisite  that  hierarchical 
power  should  maintain  in  their  despite  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  a  divine  volume ;  should  forbid  them  to  muti- 
late St.  Paul's  Epistles,  and  to  suppress  the  Gospels  of 
which  they  did  not  approve.  So  now,  if  the  same 
authorit}^  slackened  its  hold,  who"  can  doubt  that  before 
many  years  critics  left  to  their  own  devices  would  break 
up  both  Testaments  into  an  unintelligible  heap  of 
O'agments  ?  Or  do  we  not  rather  see  that  they  have 
done  so.  already  ?  This  destructive  process  wins  a  Pyr- 
rhic victory  by  disregarding  the  tradition  of  ages  and 
inverting  the  laws  of  evidence.  It  fixes  on  the  text 
as  3  field  for  infinite  conjecture,  untrammeled  by  use 
and  wont.  It  resists  or  denies  external  testimony  which, 
on  questions  of  authorship,  is  in  regard  to  books  the 
solid  ground  that  history  goes  upon.  It  tends  to  be 
at  once  fantastic  and  incoherent ;  and  is  liable  to  be 
carried  away  by  the  lightest  of  suggestions,  provided 
they  be  novel  ;  deaf  and  blind  to  conservative  state- 
ments, merely  because  they  arc  familiar.  Happily,  not 
all  modern  criticism  falls  under  these  animadversions ; 
but  there  is  far  too  much  of  it  that  will  justify  them. 
And,  since  it  is  the  want  of  steady  principles  which  thus 
incapacitates  men  otherwise  learned  in  so  eminent  a 
degree.  Catholic  tradition,  whereby  Holy  Scripture  is 
saved  from  dissolution  under  this  fatal  influence,  may 
take  credit  to  itself  as  a  bulwark  of  true  critical  science. 
In  the  second  place,  even  if  an  infallible  commentary 
on  each  verse  of  the  Bible  were  put  forth  by  the  Holy 
See,  there  would  remain  the  task  of  defending  it  on 
grounds  of  evidence,  which  could  not  be  done  without 
investigation  and  argument  resting  on  their  own  pre- 
misses. But,  so  far  from  our  having  an  exposition  in 
this  detail, — not  to  speak  of  its  being  authorised — the 


14  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

texts  which  Popes  or  Councils  have  interpreted  are 
exceedingly  few,  while  there  is  no  such  gloss  upon  a 
single  book  of  either  Testament.  Nor  does  the  Church's 
fnagisterium,  as  it  is  called — her  daily  constant  teaching 
of  the  faithful — amount  to  more  than  a  general  view, 
safeguarded,  as  St.  Thomas  would  express  it,  from 
"  pernicious  error,"  but  leaving  the  sense  in  most  places 
of  the  Written  Word  to  be  discovered  by  consultation 
with  learned  men,  by  comparison  of  documents  and 
monuments,  as  in  other  memorials  of  antiquity.  So 
long  as  the  Creed  is  not  in  danger,  freedom  prevails ; 
for  what  is  there  to  hinder  it  ?  Now  the  Creed  is  by 
no  means  commensurate  with  all  things  inside  the 
covers  of  the  Bible.  It  is  more,  since  it  includes  divine 
traditions  otherwise  given  ;  and  it  is  less,  wherever  it 
does  not  include  matters  of  history,  science,  or  secular 
knowledge,  as  we  find  them  introduced  by  the  sacred 
writers  who  do  not  guarantee  their  accuracy.  That  such 
elements  are  intermingled  with  Revelation,  as  a  concrete 
whole,  is  undeniable.  And  that  Scripture  does  not  con- 
tain a  revealed  science  or  secular  history  has  long  been 
a  commonplace  among  Catholic  commentators,  as  we 
shall  show  more  exactly  in  due  course.^ 

Limits  to  Consent  of  Antiquity. — Thirdly,  the 
"  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers  "  to  which  we  may 
not  run  counter,  is  a  dogmatic,  not  a  critical  consent,  in 
so  far  as  it  binds  us.  It  cannot  be  more  imperative 
than  the  Church's  jurisdiction  ;  neither  does  it  extend 
beyond  the  faith  and  its  necessary  implications,  moral, 
historical,  and  the  like,  according  to  its  subject-matter. 
The  assent  and  consent  of  the  Fathers  outside  these 
lines  do  not  restrict  expositors,  simply  because  at  this 
point  revealed  authority  ceases.  And  the  scope  of  Reve- 
lation sets  a  term  to  the  power  which  it  wields. 

But,  fourthly,  unanimous  consent,  while  it  is  one  of 
the  forms   in  which    Catholic  dogma  has   come  down 

^Cornely,  Gen.  Introd.,  588-93;  Gigot,  Geti,  Introd.,  398;  Vi- 
gouroux,  M,  B.  i.  284-89. 


FREE  CATHOLIC  VIEWS  15 

frorn.lhe_JFather.s,  relates  to  the  substance  of  faith  much 
more  than  to  the  way  of  expounding  it  in  Scri[)turc- 
places.  A  decisive  argument  is  at  hand.  The  Fathers 
Belong  to  various  schools  of  exegesis,  employ  methods 
which  are  exceedingly  diverse,  and  approach  the  same 
texts  from  different  points  of  view.  However  manifest 
their  agreement  as  Doctors  of  the  Church,  no  less 
equally  clear  is  their  divergence  as  private  expositors 
of  Holy  Writ,  save  in  a  few  commanding  passages. 
The  school  of  Alexandria,  which  traced  its  descent  from 
StnVIark,  was  allegorical  sometimes  to  excess ;  but 
itJndudcs  names  like  Clement  and  Origen,  whose  in- 
fluence is  discernible  in  St.  Cyril,  St  Ambrose,  St. 
AugusTihe,  and  even  St.  Thomas  Aquinas.  To  the 
Alexandrians  were  opposed  the  later  school  of  Antioch, 
great  commentators  of  whom  the  chief,  St.  Chrysostom 
and  Theodoret,  would  now  be  reckoned  more  trust- 
worthy as  adhering  to  the  literal  sense,  though  not 
discarding  the  typical  when  dogma  seemed  absolutely 
to  require  it.  Thus,  likewise,  to  interpret  the  first 
chapters  of  Genesis  a  method  was  employed  by  St 
Augustine  of  vision  or  parable,  utterly  in  contrast  with 
Sti  Basil's  acceptation  of  the  letter  w^hich  was  common 
among  Easterns.  But  on  neither  has  the  seal  of  author- 
ity been  set  to  this  day. 

Such  diversities  make  the  unanimous  consent  of 
Fathers  in  an  identical  exegesis  rare  enough  to  allow 
not  only  that  we  should  move  with  freedom,  attaching 
ourselves  to  either  school,  but  that  we  should  learn 
from  both  Alexandria  and  Antioch  how  a  more  precise 
form  of  interpretation  may  be  developed.  To  the  best 
critical  methods  history  and  archaeology,  cultivated  on 
modern  lines,  will  lend  their  aid.  The  study  of  mental 
states  and  stages  cannot  be  overlooked,  unless  we  would 
confound  epochs  of  civilisation  and  misconstrue  docu- 
ments created  under  circumstances  most  unlike  our  own. 
But  these  considerations  teach  us  that  problems  which 
the    Fathers   could   not   raise  they  assuredly   did    not 


l6  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

settle ;  that  other  questions  debated  by  them  were  left 
unresolved  for  want  of  data,  since  their  time  laid  open 
to  us  ;  that  their  very  dissensions  are  arguments  for  lib- 
erty of  research  and  invite  a  more  scientific  procedure ; 
while  the  series  of  happy  discoveries  which  have  brought 
us  face  to  face  with  ancient  Egypt,  Assyria  and  Elam, 
entitle  us  to  affirm  that  the  world  out  of  which  the 
Bible  emerged  was  never  so  well  known  as  it  is  in  our 
day. 

The  Prophetic  Sense  and  the  Letter. — If  we  dis- 
tinguish the  revealed  sense  of  Scripture  by  calling  it 
the  prophetic,  and  term  a  knowledge  of  the  letter 
criticism,  we  may  conclude  that  dogma  looks  to  finished 
results,  but, investigation  seeks  to  follow  out  their  history. 
Between  these  two  senses,  Catholics  hold,  there  cannot 
be  contradiction,  but  there  is  often  need  of  adjustment. 
And  the  critical  process,  resorting  to  such  evidence  as  it 
can  get,  fragmentary  or  uncertain,  seldom  beyond  the 
reach  of  attack,  will  never  be  complete.  To  set  up  the 
conjectures  (much  more  the  plausibilities)  of  a  science 
so  imperfect  against  the  certitudes  of  religion,  is  neither 
sound  logic  nor  good  philosophy.  Here,  as  elsewhere, 
a  purely  dissolving  scepticism  defeats  itself.  The 
doctrinal  assertions  of  authority  are  not,  indeed,  premisses 
from  which  the  critic  sets  out.  But  they  j^rotect  the 
Bible  as  a  great  historical  treasure  to  which  from  the 
beginning  witness  is  borne  by  the  society  wherein  it 
originated  and  for  which  it  was  intended. 

That  witness  may  fairly  be  presented  as  a  ground  of 
reasonable  credence, — the  sum,  in  a  very  true  estimate, 
of  external  proofs  for  the  authenticity  of  the  whole 
volume.  But,  as  consisting  of  many  parts,  derived  from 
independent  sources,  and  the  work  of  authors  whom 
ages  and  countries  have  divided,  the  Bible  exhibits 
another  testimony  in  its  own  structure  and  contents. 
These  two  departments,  internal  and  external,  make  up 
the  critic's  province.  He  is  free  to  investigate  them 
from  end  to  end.     Nevertheless,  he  cannot  be  free  to 


RULES  OF  INTERPRETATION  I7 

deny  truths  ascertained  whether  by  reason  or  Revela- 
tion. And  ifhe_dra\vs  a  circle  a  prioriy.  outside  of  which 
to  relegate— the-  Supernatural — miracles,  theophanies, 
prophetic  foresight,  and  all  that  holds  of  this — he  will 
do  so  at  the  risk  of  despising  experiences  which  man- 
kind have  always  obstinately  affirmed.  In  turning  to 
the  actual  evidence  and  letting  it  tell  its  own  tale, 
the  orthodox  critic  is  surely  more  of  a  philosopher 
than  the  rationalist  who  shuts  it  out  of  court  by  an 
axiom  that  "  miracles  do  not  happen  ".  Once  more  the 
believer  finds  himself  in  harmony  with  mental  no  less 
than  with  historical  science,  when  he  takes  into  account 
the  whole  state  of  the  case. 

Even  at  this  early  stage  we  may  indicate  how  the 
adjustment  between  dogma  and  criticism,  which  is  the 
aim  of  all  sound  learning,  has  been  advanced  by  the 
application  to  Scripture  of  methods  available  elsewhere 
— literary  and  psychological.  On  every  side  expositors 
are  giving  up  the  mistaken  fancy  which  treated  the 
Bible  as  if  it  were  one  single  book  because  all  its  parts 
had  one  Divine  authorship.  The  very  word  Bible  is 
a  noun  of  multitude,  signifying  not  a  volume,  but  a 
collection,  or  as  St.  Jerome  said,  a  "library".  Hence 
the  exegesis  which  dwelt  on  solitary  verses  or  words, 
not  regarding  the  context  of  histor}',  and  much  less 
the  mental  atmosphere,  that  lent  to  such  passages  their 
significance,  is  in  a  fair  way  to  be  abandoned.  Verbal 
inspiration,  if  still  upheld,  is  no  longer  made  equivalent 
to  verbal  perfection — as  though  there  must  be  a  "  divine 
st>'le,"  recognisable  by  its  preterhuman  characters,  and 
warranting  the  accuracy  of  every  statement  alluded  to 
by  the  sacred  writers  however  incidentally.^  For  a  pro- 
founder  treatment  provision  was  made  in  the  Fathers, 
especially  by  St.  Jerome,  whose  principles  have  never 
been  denied,  though  during  long  periods  they  were  not 
seen   to  carry  after  them  applications  which  are  now 

^  See  discus&ion  in  Bonaccorsi,  Quest.  Bill.,  95-134. 

2 


1 8  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

indispensable.  On  another  side  the  wisdom  of  St. 
Augustine,  not  conversant  with  critical  minutiae,  affords 
a  philosophy  of  Revelation  and  reconcilement. 

The  Bible  an  Eastern  Book. — That  Holy  Scripture 
in  whatsoever  language  written,  is  a  series  of  Oriental 
nay,  of  Semite  and  Hebrew  compositions,  and  must 
be  analysed  accordingly ;  that  even  the  Latin  Vulgate 
is  neither  in  style  nor  substance  European,  but  a  render- 
ing of  Asiatic  forms  of  thought  into  an  idiom  as  far 
removed  from  them  as  it  well  could  be ;  that,  in  conse- 
quence, the  standard  by  which  to  judge  of  the  Bible 
is  Eastern,  antique,  peculiar  to  itself,  not  Western,  or 
mediaeval,  or  modern  ;  and  that,  if  we  bring  to  bear  on 
it  current  notions  of  authorship,  critical  history,  expert 
handling  of  sources,  we  shall  be  doing  it  violence ; 
these  are  commonplaces  which  it  would  be  superfluous 
to  recite,  were  they  not  in  detail  constantly  overlooked. 

Those  only  will  escape  recurring  misinterpretations 
who  keep  steadily  in  mind  the  Oriental  background 
on  which  the  whole  Bible  is  delineated.  And  of  that 
background  the  elementary  prevailing  colour  is  the_, 
Hebrew  genius.  In  Scripture  there  is  nothing  Latin 
except  a  few  borrowed  terms  up  and  down  the  New 
Testament,  As  little,  in  spite  of  their  Hellenistic 
dialect,  can  we  trace  in  Gospels  or  Epistles  any 
Greek  ideas  which  have  not,  by  traversing  the  inspired 
medium,  become  a  mere  vehicle  for  the  traditions  of 
Israel  This  is  true  even  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  and 
of  Epistles  like  those  to  the  Philippians,  Ephesians, 
and  Colossians.  Greek  thought  is  not  the  source  of 
Wisdom  or  Ecclesiasticus,  which  may  claim  their  real 
origin  from  Proverbs,  and  thus  fall  into  the  line  of 
the  primitive  Old  Testament.  So  that  when  we  con- 
strue any  part  of  our  Sacred  Books  by  Thucydides 
or  Plato,  we  lay  upon  them  a  test  which  is  simply 
misleading. 

In  like  manner,  but  with  still  more  disastrous  effects, 
we  should  be  creating  imaginary  difficulties  did  we 


HOLY  WRIT  AN  ECONOMY  I9 

suppose  that,  because  a  volume  is  inr.pired,  it  must 
needs  be  written  with  a  minute  accuracy  of  quotation 
or  incident  such  as  no  human  author  can  achieve. 
Our  rule  of  exegesis,  on  the  contrary,  will  be  satisfied 
when  author  and  writing  conform  to  the  demands  of 
scope  and  audience,  to  the  period  and  its  culture,  and 
to  the  great  first  law  which  governs  exchange  of 
thought  among  contemporaries,  that  what  is  said  shall 
be  intelligible  and  apposite  to  the  circumstances.  A 
booTc'that  did  not  fulfil  these  terms  would  fail  ofTti~ 
purpose.  And  though  gifted  minds  write  for  posterity, 
are  often  wiser  than  they  know,  and  leave  that  behind 
which  distant  ages  appropriate,  still  they  are  children 
of  their  time,  using  its  language  to  express  their 
thoughts,  how  original  soever,  nor  do  they  willingly 
propound  enigmas.  The  immediate  occasion,  which 
always  has  existed,  should  therefore  always  be  sought 
after,  unless  we  would  sacrifice  the  writer's  meaning. 

But  when  we  have  secured  it  (which  is  far  from 
being  everywhere  possible)  the  very  fact  that  law-giver 
ajid  prophet  form  links  in  a  series  and  that  religion  has 
travelled  down  to  us  by  an  historical  development — 
not  like  a  science  shut  up  in  formulas  unchangeable — 
sRoutcT  warn  the  critic  that  he  is  in  presence  of  some- 
thing deeper  aiid  larger  than  any  one  mind  can  exhaust. 
It  is,  to  speak  reverently,  "  the  soul  of  this  wide  world, 
dreaming  on  things  to  come  "  (but  here  divine,  because 
intent  upon  everlasting  issues)  which  connects  the  end 
\vith  the  beginning  and  makes  earlier  disclosures  types 
or  suggestrve  symbols  of  what  is  to  be  given  later. 
Thus  every  human  work  has  a  remote  or  permanent 
as  well  as  a  contemporary  value.  But  the  Bible  more 
clearly  than  the  less  inspired,  because  events  and  in- 
stitutions themselves  likewise  sacred  provide  us  with 
a  comment  which  explains  it.  If  Nature  to  the  be- 
lievei^  m  God  is  a  parable,  or  an  "  Economy,"  as  the 
school  oPAIexandria  would  say,  Holy  Writ  is  a  great 

Sacrament.     The  letter  is  an  outward  sign  of  hidden 
-— 2--*^  -  


20  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

tpitb-  destined  in  course  of  ages  to  be  made  known. 
We  now  perceive  in  its  chapters  more  vividly  than 
ever,  the  ascent  from  Law  to  Prophets,  from  Prophets 
to  Christ  and  His  Church.  Difficult  as  it  would  be 
for  the  mere  historian  not  to  recognise  epochs,  distinct 
yet  connected,  in  a  movement  which  extends  from 
Abraham's  Call  to  the  death  of  St.  John,  or  not  to 
mark  its  enlarging  cycle,  that  recurrence  of  type  and 
antitype, — that  fulfilment,  in  other  words,  of  prophecy, 
— is  assured  for  the  critic  who  keeps  an  eye  upon 
Tradition,  by  the  judgment  of  the  Society  in  which 
the  Bible  has  grown  up.  Jews  and  Christians  alike 
declare  it,  differing  not  as  regards  the  Messianic  struc- 
ture of  the  Old  Testament,  though  as  yet  disputing 
whether  it  be  completed  by  the  New. 

Its  Method  a  Development. — Hence,  by  a  wonder- 
ful coincidence,  the  method  of  evolution,  applied  to 
religion  as  biology  now  applies  it  to  life,  cannot  but 
reveal  the  law  of  ascent  from  imperfect  rudiments  to  a 
scope  fulfilled.  While  every  stage  is  sufficient  for  itself, 
the  earlier  creations  are  meant  to  be  superseded.  The 
long  standing  quarrel  of  Gnostic  and  Catholic,  which 
filled  the  second  century  and  has  often  broken  out 
since,  is  brought  to  an  end,  not  by  surrendering  the 
Q  ^  \»  tJebrew  Covenant  as  the  work  of  an  evil  Demiurge, 
but  by  setting  it  in  its  place  and  time.  That  volume 
is  not,  as  Origen  was  tempted  to  say,  the  bare  allegory 
of  Christ's  doctrine;  it  is  a  true  "  Dispensation,"  ^  granted 
under  circumstances  which  in  their  promise  and  pass- 
ing types  correspond  to  the  elder  periods  of  geology. 
The  Father  who  "anticipates  our  soundest  modern  views 
on  this  head  is  St.  Augustine.  Everywhere,  develop- 
ment as  an  idea  haunts  him ;  in  his  "  Comment  upon 
Genesis,"  and  the  "  City  of  God,"  he  has  bestowed  on 
its  laws  a  wealth  of  reflection  most  stimulating.  We 
can  borrow  from  these  deeply  suggestive  meditations 

^  Ephesians  i.  lo. 


IMPERFECT  STAGES  21 

only  a  sentence  or  two.  Lookintj  upon  the  things 
which  were  first  created,  our  Christian  Plato  remarks, 
"In  all  of  them  such  as  were  made  have  received  the 
modes  and  activities  of  their  time ;  so  that  from  hidden 
aiidJnvisible  reasons  (which  are  latent  as  causes  in  the- 
CLcature  produced)  they  have  issued  forth  in  manifest 
^jms  and  natures,  even  as  the  green  herb  springing  out 
of  the  ground,  , and  man  made  into  a  living  soul". 
Hence,  in  their  "  causal  reasons "  things  were  perfect 
from_the^beginning ;  but  for  their  evolution  time  was 
necessary.  Or,  as  we  should  now  express  ourselves, 
the  Idea  guided  the  process,  being  to  it  a  final  cause 
and  an  explanation,  while  within  the  organism  a  seed 
of  growth  lay  concealed.^ 

Another  law  which  development  from  a  living  germ 
postulates,  is  correlation,  otherwise  termed  homology, 
which  requires  that  the  organs  and  parts  shall  be 
proportioned  each  to  each,  and  to  the  whole.  Thus 
between  the  ethics,  rites  and  ceremonies,  doctrines  and 
precepts,  of  any  one  era  in  the  Old  Testament,  we  shall 
look  for  a  certain  harmony,  not  expecting  a  moral  code 
far  in  advance  where  civilisation  lags  behind.  ThaJ: 
even_pivine  Ordinances  took  into  account  the  imper- 
fect heart  of  Israel,  and  suffered  institutions  like  poly-_^ 
gamy,  blood-revenge,  divorce,  slavery,  to  go  on  existing, 
though  condemned  by  more  humane  principles  and  t_o 
be  abolished  when  the  Christian  law  of  love  was  pro- 
mulgated, is  beyond  denial.  Our  Tord  corrects  the 
practice  while  giving  a  reason  for  its  toleration  (Matt. 
V.  20-48  ;  xix.  7 ;  Mark  x.  5).  St_Augu^tine  will  have 
us  consider  that  in  a  state  so  rudimentary,  the  legislator 
Himself  cannot  but  issue  commands  which  are  on  a 
level  with  it.  "At  was  God's  order,"  he  says,  "who 
certainly  knows  according  to  the  heart  of  each,  what 
and  by  means  of  whom  each  individual  ought  to  under- 
go suffering."     Hence,  "  they  deserved,  the  one  party 

^Pe  Gen,  ad  Lit.,  vi.  17-27. 


22  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

to  be  told  to  inflict  it,  the  other  to  submit  to  it  ".^  On 
a  similar  course  of  reasoning,  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  animal  sacrifices  are  explained  as  shadows 
of  a  better  and  more  perfect  rite,  which  being  their 
consummation  ethically,  could  not  but  bring  them  to 
an  end  (x.  9).  When,  therefore,  evolution  is  invoked 
rather  than  allegory  to  clear  up  difficult  points,  whether 
affecting  the  Moral  Code,  or  the  all  too  human  concep- 
tions of  Deity,  or  the  "weak  and  beggarly  elements" 
of  the  Temple  service,  or  the  divergent  conduct  of 
chosen  men  acting  on  a  Divine  intimation.  Scripture 
itself  offers  us  that  key,  and  Tradition  by  the  hands  of 
the  Fathers  makes  use  of  it.  For,  as  St.  Gregory  the 
Great  reminds  us,  "  Moses  was  more  instructed  in  the 
knowledge  of  God  than  Abraham,  the  Prophets  more 
than  Moses,  the  Apostles  more  than  the  Prophets  ".^ 

A  third  law  is  that  of  assimilation.  The  germ  which 
means  to  live  will  take  from  the  right  hand  or  the  left, 
not  being  at  all  solicitous  whence  comes  the  material,  so 
long  as  it  can  be  run  into  the  mould  and  appropriated 
to  its  new  service.  Originality  does  not  consist  in  self- 
denial,  but  in  mastering  and  making  one's  own  the 
infinite  potencies  of  ideas  while  not  losing  one's  indi- 
vidual traits.  This  principle  has  the  widest  field  in 
religion,  as  history  shows  it  to  us,  and  in  the  codes  and 
literatures  of  great  nations.  Of  these  it  may  be  truly 
said  that  assimilation  is  the  law  of  their  being.  Neither 
does  it  signify  at  what  point  in  the  line  of  march  a 
sovereign  movement  seizes  on  its  tributary  aids ,  if  it 
can  sweep  them  on  with  it,  no  date  will  matter.  Those 
accessories  may  seem  to  have  existed  before  its  time ; 
they  may  boast  themselves  heirs  of  a  grander  civilisa- 
tion ;  nay,  their  actual  worth  may  be  more  than  that 
of  some  elements  already  present  in  the  conquering 
organism ;  but  if  they  succumb  to  it,  the  question  of 
right  is  decided.     For  apart  from  it  they  would  perish ; 

1  Contr.  Faust.,  xxii.  71,  72.         ^Iii  Ezek-,  ii.,  hom.  ^,  no.  i:?, 


FROM  LETTER  TO  SPIRIT  23 

subdued  to  it  they  enter  on  a  new  and  prosperous  life. 
Assimilation,  while  it  enriches,  also  refines  ;  but  it  is 
the  "latent  cause,"  the  "seminal  reason,"  detected  by 
St.  Augustine  in  God's  creations,  that  casts  out  evil  and 
HrTngs  the  good  to  light.  Only  when  we  look  back 
"over  the  whole  process  do  we  understand  why  in  primi- 
tive eras  toleration  of  the  imperfect  was  so  large.  The 
aim  is  to  bring  in  from  all  sides  that  which  afterwards 
will  be  sifted  and  turned  to  account.  If  a  Divine  Idea 
becomes  subject  to  conditions  of  time,  its  method,  as 
we  see  from  the  Bible,  will  be  eclectic ;  the  condescen- 
"sion  of  its  Author  will  often  appear  to  be  weakness; 
and  in  the  form  of  a  slave  He  will  win  His  triumph 
over  principalities  and  powers. 

Given  such  a  point  of  view,  we  can  follow  St. 
Augustine  when  he  declares  "  patent "  in  the  New 
Testament  that  which  was  merely  "  latent "  in  the  Old. 
We  draw  the  inference,  far-reaching  as  it  is  illuminative, 
that  imperfect  manifestation  proves  a  more  finished  one 
to  be"  in  store,  anticipates  rather  than  contradicts  the 
DivineJ-dea,  and  must  be  read  by  "  looking  before  and 
after  "  ;  as  a  curve  is  governed  in  mathematics  by  the 
law  which  it  discloses  though  it  be  only  begun.  Sacred 
history,  the  drama  of  God's  Revelation,  craves  like  any 
other  high  action  (and  more  in  proportion  to  its  height)  a 
continually  changing  movement ;  it  will  abound  in  con- 
trasts and  discords,  until  by  issuing  in  the  glory  of  Jesus 
made  known  to  His  Church  it  reconciles  all  differences. 

From  the  "carnal"  Jew  to  the  "spiritual"  Christian 
there  is  a  progress  by  antagonism,  of  which  St.  Paul  is 
the^'never-wearied  exponent.  "  The  letter,"  taken  by 
itself,  not  construed  as  a  lesson  elementary  but  impera- 
tive in  man's  training,  "  killeth  "  ;  but  when  the."  spirit^ 
comes,  a  purpose  is  beheld  at  last  in  realisation,  and  is 
discerned  as  having  been  at  work  from  the  prelude  to 
the  crowning  act.^ 

1  The  "  accommodated  "  sense  of  this  passage,  2  Cor.  iii.  6,  is  as 
ancient  as  Origen.     And  see  St.  Jerome  on  Hosea. 


24  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Not  Hazard  but  Miracle. — This  connection  the  critic 
will  historically  demonstrate.  Moses  and  the  Prophets 
do  bring  in  Christ ;  without  Him  the  Bible  would  be  a 
\vriting  that  breaks  off,  a  torso  to  which  the  features  are 
wanting.  Here,  then,  comes  the  dilemma  that  sceptics 
must  resolve.  Either  accident  or  miracle— the  hazard 
which  cannot  shape  events,  or  else  the  foresight  which 
designed  them.  But  accident  is  no  explanation.  And 
if  Intelligence  brought  the  perfect  figure  of  Jesus  forth 
out  of  elements  so  conflicting,  across  ages  that  seemed 
to  have  gone  each  its  own  way,  from  a  people  who 
made  of  their  Law  a  dead  stereotype  and  saw  in  its 
sublimest  provisions  nothing  but  a  fossilised  ritual,  the 
argument  is  complete.  Just  because  He  fulfils  the  Law 
J  by  giving  it  a  human  and  universal  application,  Jesus 
'  proves  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah.  In  no  other  way 
has  the  Chosen  People  ever  fulfilled  its  duty  as  the 
world's  religious  teacher.  For  mankind  Jesus  alone  is 
that  Israel  without  which  Greek  wisdom  had  been 
fruitless,  Roman  Law  a  yoke  of  iron,  Teutonic  adven- 
I  tures  the  blind  putting  forth  of  a  strength  in  which 
there  was  no  ideal. 

Moreover,  the  Bible,  which  is  a  Book  of  the  East, 
though  it  has  long  controlled  the  deepest  thoughts  of 
Western  races,  shows  not  a  sign  of  decrepitude.  It  is 
spreading  among  the  nations  of  Farthest  Asia,  or  will 
make  its  way  to  them  ;  and,  if  the  Christian  Catholic 
interpretation  be  put  upon  all  that  is  in  it, — if  it  be 
offered  as  a  prophecy  the  meaning  of  which  is  guarded 
by  a  living  Tradition, — who  can  doubt  of  its  future? 
The  written  Word  will  absorb  or  overcome  by  sheer 
force  of  a  perfection  gradually  attained,  those  other 
"  Sacred  Books "  which  cannot  vie  with  it  in  energy, 
wisdom,  tenderness,  moral  grandeur,  and  progressive 
adaptation  to  the  growth  of  the  spirit.  So,  ever  more 
and  more,  this  volume  is  entitled  to  its  great  simple 
name :  it  is  "  the  Book  of  Books,"  without  an  equal, 
summing  up  in  its  pages  the  preparation  of  the  Gospel, 


THE  BIBLE  AND  MIRACLES  ■  25 

then  displaying  it  as  a  Divine  Life  incarnate  in  the  Man 
Chrjstjesus^  who  by  His  Church  establishes  the  rudi- 
ments of  God's  Kingdom  on  earth,  and  by  slow  steps 
but  sure  is  bringing  into  it  all  nations.^ 

From  these  things  it  is  a  plain  conclusion  that  we  are 
dealing  in  Christianity  with  a  system  beyond  nature, 
therefore  miraculous,  or  in  its  cause  and  development 
strictly  Divine.  Its  effects  arc  manifestly  not  of  this 
world,  though  to  some  degree  visible  in  this  world. 
We  cannot  account  for  Jesus  by  any  method  which 
takes  Him  for  less  than  what  He  claims  to  be,  the  Only 
Begotten  Son  of  the  Father.  If  so  much  be  granted, 
the  Scriptures  which  record  this  supreme  exhibition  of 
grace  and  truth  may  well  be  expected  to  tell  us  of  many 
beside  it,  forecasts,  glimpses,  warnings,  of  the  spiritual 
order  as  it  passes  down  into  symbols  and  institutions  of 
which  the  elements  were  earth-born.  The  Incarnation 
cannot  be  a  solitary  event,  standing  alone  amid  a  world 
unrelated  to  it.  There  will  be  a  scheme  of  the  super- 
natural commensurate,  to  say  the  least,  with  its  purpose 
which  does  not  overlook  any  of  the  children  of  Adam. 
Unless,  therefore,  we  "  dissolve  Jesus  "  into  a  m>i:h,  or 
deny  His  influence  on  the  moral  destinies  of  our  race, 
or  make  illusion  the  mother  of  an  ideal  greater  than  any 
which  human  effort  has  found  out  or  is  likely  to  find, 
the  Bible  itself  must  be  miraculous  in  what  it  narrates 
as  in  its  main  teaching.  The  criticism  therefore  which 
denies  the  superhuman  of  Holy  Writ  may  be  rational- 
istic but  is  far  from  being  rational.  And  if  it  pro- 
nounces a  rule  absolute  forbidding  us  to  admit  the 
truth  of  visions  that  call  themselves  prophecies ;  if  it 
degrades  every  account  of  wonders  wrought  on  body 
and  mind  to  misunderstandings ;  if  it  withdraws  from 
the  hand  of  God  the  works  which  He  has  made,  so 
that  they  obey  Him  no  longer,  what  unreason  can 
surpass  these  veritable  superstitions  ? 

1  De  Maistre,  Soirees  de  St.  Pctcrsbourg,  ii.  last  pages. 


26  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

The  \xMQ.  a  priori  to  Scripture  is  the  living  God. 
That  He  should  inspire,  command,  direct  the  course  of 
things  to  ends  beyond  them,  acting  as  seems  good  in 
His  eyes  on  the  forces  of  Nature,  and  bringing  to  light* 
its  intelligible,  its  religious  purpose,  those  only  will  re- 
fuse to  think  possible  who  set  His  laws  above  Himself, — 
who  do  not  perceive  that  in  every  law  He  is  present  and 
is  jts  innermost  reason.  He  is  neither  a  dead  God  nor 
the  God  of  the  dead.  When  He  created  matter  and 
spirit,  mind  and  will,  He  did  not  abdicate  His  sove- 
reignty over  them.  Since,  however,  the ,  Bible  is  a 
supernatural  creation,  any  man  who  disregards  this 
fact  may  be  likened  to  one  reading  the  Greek  of 
Homer's  Iliad  as  though  it  were  English.  Wherever 
that  system  has  been  acted  upon,  the  effect,  as  we  see, 
is  to  destroy  Christianity  root  and  branch.  A  non- 
miraculous  Christ,  an  uninspired  Bible,  bring  as  their 
consequence,  not  to  be  escaped  by  any  logic,  a  dead 
God.  For  those  who  have  once  been  enlightened. 
Rationalism,  if  it  takes  hold  of  them,  cannot  stop  short 
of  this  ruin.  But  when  we  unite  Church  and  Bible,  we 
announce  that  God  is  in  History  reconciling  the  ages  to 
Himself. 

Inspiration  Correlated  to  Prophecy. — Nothing  could 
be  more  agreeable  to  these  principles  than  that  the 
record  of  His  gracious  dealings  should  be  written  under 
His  guidance.  Though  it  need  not  have  been  so,  yet 
we  are  prepared  to  believe  that  every  Scripture  is  given 
by  inspiration  of  God  (2  Tim.  iii.  16).  There  is  a  Re- 
velatio  revelata.  The  messengers  are  sent  by  Divine 
authority ;  the  message  is  from  on  high,  beyond  human 
imaginings ;  what  so  congruous  as  that  it  should  be 
committed  to  documents  of  a  like  state  and  dignit}'  ? 
St.  Paul  assures  the  Corinthians  (2  Cor.  iii.  3),  "  Ye  are 
manifestly  declared  to  be  the  Epistle  of  Christ  ministered 
by  us,  written  not  with  ink,  but  with  the  Spirit  of  the 
living  God,  not  in  tables  of  stone,  but  in  fleshly  tables 
of  the  heart  ",     This  was  that  Tradition,  in  teachers  and 


ITS  WRITERS  INSPIRED  27 

disciples,  to  which  we  have  so  often  had  recourse.  ]iut 
St.  Paul's  allusion,  as  well  as  his  example,  leads  on  to 
the  idea  of  a  Written  Word  and  of  other  instruments, 
controlled  by  the  Spirit  in  times  past  And  St.  Peter, 
the  first  head  of  Christian  Tradition,  gathers  up,  as  was 
fitting,  the  whole  matter  into  a  few  sentences  with  which 
this  introduction  may  conclude.  "We  have  also,"  he 
tells  us,  "a  more  sure  word  of  prophecy  ;  whereunto  ye 
do  well  that  ye  take  heed,  as  unto  a  light  that  shincth 
in  a  dark  place,  until  the  day  dawn  and  the  day-star 
arise  in  your  hearts.  Knowing  this  first,  that  no  pro- 
phecy of  the  Scripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation. 
For  the  prophecy  came  not  in  old  time  by  the  will  of 
man  ;  but  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost"  (2  Peter  i.  19-21). 


SECTION  I. 

ORIGINS,  AUTHORS,  CANON  OF  OLD 
TESTAMENT. 

CHAPTER  I. 
TRADITION  AND  THE  CRITICS. 

Our  Three  Problems. — Three  questions  may  be 
raised  concerning  the  Sacred  Books : — 

(i)  What  is  their  genuine  text?     Textual  Criticism. 

(2)  Who  wrote  them  and  from  what  sources  ? 
Higher  Criticism. 

(3)  What  is  their  authority  ?  Their  Inspiration  and 
Interpretation. 

We  propose  to  deal  with  (i)  and  (2)  in  the  present 
section  as  regards  the  Old  Testament,  premising  some 
general  remarks. 

The  Latin  Vulgate. — For  Catholics  the  "  authorita- 
tive "  version  of  Holy  Scripture  set  out  by  the  Council 
of  Trent  (Sess.  iv.,  April  8,  1546),  is  contained  in  the 
"  old  Latin  Vulgate  edition  ".  This  work  was  revised 
and  republished  by  order  of  Clement  VIII.  in  1592, 
from  a  text  which  had  been  already  issued  under  Sixtus 
V.  (1590),  but  which  needed  many  alterations  before  it 
could  satisfy  critical  demands.  About  four  thousand 
variations,  occasionally  serious,  have  been  counted  in 
tlie  Clementine  as  compared  with  the  Sixtine  Bible. 
No  later  revision  is  attributable  to  the  Holy  See ;  nor 
is  a  complete  critical  text,  founded  on  collation  of  MSS, 

38 


THE  LATIN  BIBLE  29 

<ind  vernacular  translations,  forthcoming^  at  this  day. 
It  would  appear  to  follow,  and  is  commonly  held,  that 
the  Church  guarantees,  by  calling  the  Vulgate  "au- 
thentic," its  substantial  accordance  with  those  originals 
of  which  it  is  a  rendering,  but  not  its  accuracy  in  all 
minute  particulars.^ 

Thus  Andreas  Vega,  Tridentine  theologian  ;  "  hav- 
ing regard  to  its  antiquity  and  the  honour  shown  it 
during  many  years  by  the  Latin  Councils ; — that  the 
faithful  might  also  be  assured  that  no  pernicious  error 
could  be  derived  from  it  and  so  it  might  be  read  with 
safety ; — moreover,  to  end  the  confusion  to  which  a  mul- 
titude of  versions  gives  rise,  and  to  check  the  licence 
of  ever  fresh  translations,  the  Council  determined  that 
we  should  employ  the  Vulgate  in  public  readings,  dis- 
putes, and  expositions.  So  far  then  was  it  declared 
authentic  that  all  might  know  for  certain  of  its  con- 
taining no  error  from  which  any  mischievous  dogma  in 
faith  and  morals  could  be  collected,"-  To  the  same 
effect  Laynez,  Mariana,  and  writers  coeval  with  the 
period  or  the  succeeding  age. 

And  not  only  is  the  Latin  Vulgate  (negatively)  free' 
from  dogmatic  error,  but  (positively)  it  expresses  all 
that  belongs  to  the  substance  of  the  Written  Word. 
For  otherwise  it  would  not  fulfil  the  office  assigned  it 
in  controversy  and  public  teaching.^  In  technical  lan- 
guage this  conformity  does  not  exclude  "  modal  discre- 
pancies," such  as  are  likely  or  inevitable  when  ideas 
from  one  idiom  have  to  be  rendered  into  another. 
Again,  what  is  here  termed  the  "  dogmatic  use  "  of  a 
version,  however  venerable,  need  not  imply  that  pas- 
sages of  dubious  authenticity  in  current  Hebrew  or 
Greek  recensions  become  more  certain  if  we  find  them 
in  the  Latin.     It  was  not  intended  by  the  Fathers  of 

^  Comely,  Introd.  Gen.,  i.  443-45  ;  Vigouroux,  M.  B.,  i,  223-26. 
2  Pallavicini,  Istor.  Cone.  Trid.,  vi.  17,  and  Vega,  De  Justificat., 
XV.  9. 

^  Bellarmine,  D»  Verbo  Dei,  ii.  10. 


30  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

the  Council  to  determine  critical  questions,  but  to  safe- 
guard the  integrity  of  that  Bible  from  which  they  drew 
their  testimonies.^ 

Behind  the  Tridentine  Vulgate  a  long  history  stretches 
out.  We  go  back  through  eleven  hundred  and  fifty 
years  of  public  usage  to  St.  Jerome  (about  346-420), 
who,  at  command  of  Pope  Damasus  (f  384),  undertook, 
not  to  create  a  new  Latin  Bible,  but  to  revise  that  which 
was  extant  and  which  had  been  popular  from  some  in- 
definite period  in  the  late  second  century.  Tertullian 
refers  to  a  Latin  version  and  St.  Cyprian  quotes  from 
it  constantly;  it  is  still  recoverable  for  the  whole  of 
the  New  Testament ;  in  a  somewhat  modified  form  (the 
Gallican)  as  regards  the  Psalter ;  in  fragments  of  Pen- 
tateuch, Joshua,  Judges,  Job  and  Esther;  and  in  the 
deutero-canonical  books  or  portions  of  books  transferred 
to  our  Vulgate,  We  have  been  accustomed  to  speak 
of  it  as  the  Vetus  Itala  ;  following  a  possibly  corrupt 
reading  in  St.  Augustine  (Be  Doct.  Christiana,  ii.  15), 
Cardinal  Wiseman  argued  on  grounds  now  considered 
untenable  that  it  was  of  African  origin.  But  there 
may  have  existed  a  number  of  versions  comprising,  if 
not  the  whole  Bible,  yet  many  sections.  The  authors 
are  quite  unknown,  i  and  2  Mace,  Baruch  and  Tobit 
have  been  instanced  as  not  belonging  to  the  recosfnised 
Vetus  Latina.  In  any  case  the  old  version  had  affinities 
with  the  so-called  "  rustic  language "  ;  it  gave  a  literal 
and  often  barbarous  rendering  of  the  LXX. ;  and  in  the 
fourth  century  was  corrupted  by  popular  usage.^ 

St.  Jerome's  Labours. — What  St.  Jerome  did  may 
be  exhibited  as  follows.  He  translated  directly  from 
the  Hebrew  for  public  service  all  those  books  which 
are  contained  in  the  Jewish  Canon,  except  the  Psalms. 
These,  in  388,  he  corrected,  not  venturing  to  deal  more 
freely  with  a  text  in  liturgical  and  private  use.  The 
foundation  here  was  the  LXX.  as  found  in  Origen's 

'  Comely,  iit  supra,  456  ;  Bonaccorsi,  Quest.  Bib.,  13-27. 

*  Tertull.,  Adv.  Prax.,  v. :  Adv.  Marc,  v.  4  ;  Comely,  Introd.,  358-72. 


THE  SEPTUAGINT  3' 

Hexapla.  From  the  Aramaic  he  rendered  not  so 
much  the  words  as  the  sense  of  Tobit  and  Judith.  His 
own  exceedingly  valuable  reproduction  of  the  "  Hebrew 
Truth,"  not  depending  on  Vetus  I tala,  occupied  Jerome 
from  391  to  404.  The  remaining  books,  or  "second 
Canon,"  he  left  pretty  much  as  he  found  them  in  that 
elder  Latin.  For  the  New  Testament  it  was  also  kept 
but  with  revision  according  to  the  Greek,  which  latter 
is  now  represented  by  MSS.  not  earlier  than  the  fourth 
century  A.D.^ 

"  Autlientic,"  as  used  at  Trent,  does  not  signify,  as  Car- 
dinal Franzelin  argued,  "  concordant  with  the  originals," 
but  "of  recognised  legal  standing,"  and  so  authoritative, 
"Scriptum  aliquod  quod  ex  se  fidem  facit  in  judicio". 
Yet,  in  fact,  it  implies  and  could  not  but  to  this  extent 
secure,  an  assurance  of  such  agreement.  The  Vulgate 
is  a  good  Latin  copy  of  both  Testaments,  in  whatever 
language  they  first  appeared.  The  New  Testament 
was  altogether  Greek,  Hellenistic  in  dialect,  with  one 
disputable  exception,  St.  Matthew,  which  was  long 
and  largely  declared  to  be  of  Aramaic  provenance. 
But  what  was  the  Old  Testament  ? 

The  Seventy. — For  Christians,  immediately,  it  was 
to  be  found  in  the  Greek  Septuagint,  during  the  first 
two  centuries  of  our  era.  The  legend  accepted  by 
Philo,  Josephus,  Irenaeus,  Clement,  somewhat  scorn- 
fully treated  by  St.  Jerome,  but  not  overthrown  until 
attacked  by  Lud.  Vives  of  Louvain  (f  1 540),  connected 
this  epoch-making  work  with  Ptolemy  Philadelphus 
(285-247  B.C.)  and  Demetrius  Phalereus,  librarian  of 
Alexandria.^  The  "  Letter  of  Aristeas,"  in  which  this 
wonderful  story  first  occurs  (about  80  B.C.),  will  not 
"Bear  investigation  and  is  undoubtedly  spurious.  Look- 
ing carefully  at  the  version  itself  we  can  be  certain 

'  Vigouroux,  M.  B.,  i.,  210-222. 

*  Philo,  Vit.  Moys.,  ii.  5  ;  Joseph.,  Antiq.  Jews,  xii.  2  ;  Just.,  Hortat., 
xiii. ;  Iren.,  Adv.  Hares,  iii.  21  ;  Jerome,  Contr.  Ruf.,  ii.  25;  Talmud 
Babylon,  Megill.,  9  a,  etc. 


32  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

that  it  was  made  for  Jews,  not  for  heathen  scholars  or 
princes ;  that  it  grew  by  degrees  from  the  Law,  which 
was  its  beginning,  until  it  included  all  the  Hebrew 
sacred  library  ;  that  it  is  indeed  Egyptian  and  therefore 
Alexandrian  as  a  whole ;  and  the  Prologue  to  Ecclesi- 
asticus  (about  1 30  B.C.)  appears  to  indicate  that  a  Greek 
Bible  corresponding  to  the  Old  Testament  had  been  in 
existence  for  some  time.  The  language  is  the  "  Common 
Dialect,"  showing  an  imperfect  and  very  unclassical 
acquaintance  with  Greek.  Some  liberties  are  taken 
with  the  Hebrew,  especially  by  way  of  toning  down  its 
bold  anthropomorphisms.  But  the  language  itself  was 
not  well  known  to  the  various  translators,  who  fail  in 
Isaiah;  handle  Sam.,  Jer.,  Proverbs,  Job,  Esther,  Dan. 
rather  freely;  but  in  Ezek.,  Chron.,  Canticles,  Eccles. 
keep  more  to  the  letter.  As  might  be  anticipated,  the 
Pentateuch,  with  which  they  were  most  familiar,  is  the 
best  of  their  renderings.^ 

On  comparing  the  LXX.,  whether  in  Origen's  great 
parallel  or  in  quotations  by  New  Testament  and  the 
Fathers,  with  our  present  Hebrew,  known  as  the 
Massorah,  differences  justly  termed  innumerable  dis- 
close themselves.  And  if  we  bear  in  mind,  as  cannot 
be  questioned,  that  for  the  Alexandrian  Jews  no  less 
than  for  those  of  Palestine,  the  books  of  Scripture  re- 
cognised between  250-130  B.C.  were  inspired,  z>.,  God's 
word  written,  we  must  conclude  that  deliberate  tamper- 
ing with  it  by  private  men,  or  even  "by  authority  of  a 
.synagogue,  will  not  explain  these  variations.  The  text, 
therefore,  cannot  yet  have  been  thoroughly  established. 
In  200  B.C.,  if  not  later,  "the  different  schools  had 
different  redactions ".  There  was  a  Samaritan  copy 
of  the  Mosaic  Torah  with  which  we  may  connect  the 
Sadducee,  or  old  Conserv^ative,  party,  who  did  not  allow 
Novellcc,  i.e.  legal  additions,  to  be  canonical.  There 
was,  likewise,  a  Pharisee  interpretation,  based  on  its 

i£.  Bt.,  "  Text  and  Versions,"  sees.  46-55. 


THE  MASSORAII  33 

own  readiness,  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  Rut  in 
ICijypt  MSS.  were  followed  which  did  not  agree  with 
uTi'at  the  Sopherim  at  Jerusalem  gave  out  as  authentic. 
Nevertheless  it  would  seem  that  not  any  condemnation 
of  the  LXX.  is  discoverable  until  long  after  the  Chris- 
tian era. 

No  standard  Hebrew  text  in  the  time  of  our  Lord 
and  His  Apostles  forbade  orthodox  Jews  to  quote  the 
Greek  renderin<xs  as  decisive  and  therefore  doirmatic. 
So  much  is  evident  from  the  New  Testament  itself  in 
all  its  parts.  Later  on,  Hebrew  MSS.  which  diverged 
from  the  Massorah  were  destroyed.  But  the  Samaritan 
could  not  be  utterly  done  away.  And  the  LXX.  pre- 
serves for  our  learning  an  Old  Testament  which  has 
ever  been  in  substance  that  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

The  Massorah. — As  regards  the  "  authorised " 
Hebrew,  we  should  never  forget  that  its  origin  is 
polemic,  and  not  more  critical  than  sectarian.  "  It  was 
primarily  directed,"  says  Ginsburg,  "against  the  MSS. 
which  exhibited  the  recension  from  which  the  Septua- 
gint  Version  was  made,  as  well  as  against  the  Hebrew 
text  of  the  Samaritans."  ^  While  the  Babj-lon  Talmud 
announced  that  the  LXX.  wrote  under  divine  guidance 
and  that  their  variations  were  inspired,  the  Rabbis  of 
a  subsequent  age  called  their  work  a  national  calamity 
and  the  day  on  which  it  was  finished,  the  8th  of  Tebet, 
a  day  of  ill  omen. 

We  conclude  that  the  Massorah  was  gradually  wrought 
out  between  200  B.C.  and  200  A.b.  or  even  later ;  that 
it  need  not  always,  and  sometimes  must  not  be  fol- 
lowed in  preference  to  the  Hebrew  which  underlies 
the  LXX.  ;  and  that  if  on  occasion  the  original  is 
highly  problematic  or  even  lost,  it  is  only  what  may 
be  expected  from  so  ancient  and  complicated  a  his- 
tory. There  is  no  reason  to  assume  that  Providence 
would  interpose  to  prevent  divergences  of  such  a  kind 

^  In  trod,  to  Heb.  Massoret.  Bi.,  305. 

3 


34  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

as  exist,  if  they  take  nothing  from  the  Divine  message. 
The  substantial  agreement  of  Vulgate,  Septuagint,  and 
Massorah,  is  undeniable.  And  since  we  do  not  possess 
the  Hebrew  original  which  lay  before  the  Seventy,  we 
have  no  alternative  but  to  take  as  our  primal  text  that 
very  Massorah,  using  all  our  translations  outside  the 
modern  vernaculars  as  lights  upon  it  which  may  claim, 
according  to  circumstances,  a  value  of  their  own. 

It  is  curious  that  the  Hebrew  Canon  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  Catholic  of  the  New  Testament 
were  definitely  closed  about  the  same  time — between 
140  and  180  A.D.  The  Muratorian  Fragment,  which  is 
not  much  later  than  Pope  Pius  I.,  and  which,  if  it  be 
not  certainly  due  to  Hippolytus  of  Portus,  betrays  its 
Roman  associations,  marks  the  lower  limit  for  the 
Christian  inspired  writings.  But  we  are  much  in  the 
dark  as  regards  the  place  and  the  manner  in  which 
our  catalogue  was  determined.  The  Mishnah,  about 
200,  tells  us  that  the  disputes  which  had  formerly^ 
taken  place  among  the  Jews  died  away  under  Rabbi 
Akiba  (117  A.D.),  and  we  may  assign  to  the  School  of 
Tiberias,  and  to  the  years  following  Hadrian's  dedica- 
tion of  Jerusalem  as  ^lia  Capitolina,  the  Canon  of 
Old  Testament  which  became  peremptory  for  Israel 
down  to  modern  times.  But  the  text,  including  its 
vocalisation  as  we  now  have  it,  was  not  settled  until 
perhaps  the  eight  century  A.D.  To  the  Hebrew  of 
his  day  St.  Jerome  appealed.  But  it  was  not  quoted 
by  the  Fathers  at  large,  who  were  unacquainted  with 
Hebrew.  It  remained  unknown  to  Catholic  writers  of 
the  Middle  Ages,  with  rare  exceptions  like  Peter  the 
Venerable  and  Roger  Bacon.  It  furnished,  therefore, 
to  Christians  no  enlightenment  on  reading  or  author- 
ship ;  so  that  we  need  not  trouble  to  distinguish  the 
Eastern  school  at  Babylon  (Madinchai)  from  the  West- 
em  or  Palestinian  (Maarbai),  which  go  back  to  the  third 
century  A.D.  and  have  their  separate  tradition  of  exegesis. 
For  they  do  not  affect  the  real  points  at  issue,  though 


PALESTINE  CANON  35 

useful  as  indicatint^  the  source  whence  variations  arose 
in  the  LXX.  and  the  "  Chaldee"  version  of  the  Prophets. 
Our  concern  at  present  is  with  ancient  Bible  history, 
not  with  mediaeval  or  modern. ^ 

Hebrew  Canon  Fixed. — We  begin  by  pointing  out  an 
illusion  which  is  very  natural  but  unfounded,  z^zlc.,  that  the 
Canon  of  the  Old  Testament  as  held  by  the  Synagogue 
(or  the  Hebrew  Church)  was  defined  and  indisputable 
at  our  Lord's  coming.  Such  was  not  the  case.  Had  it 
been  so,  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists  could  never  have 
quoted  from  the  LXX.  as  they  constantly  do,  without 
some  Indication  of  the  line  which  divided  the  smaller 
from  the  larger  catalogue  of  sacred  books.  Even  if 
we  take  the  Palestine  list,  it  is  certain  that  various 
portions  of  it  trembled  on  the  edge  between  rejection 
anjd  acknowledgment  (such  as  Ecclcsiastes,  Ruth, 
Esther^ -Proverbs,  and  SoFomon's  Song)  until  the  Rab- 
binical authorities  at  Jamnia  (70  A.D.  or  thirty  years 
later,  about  loi)  admitted  them,'-^  Josephus.  indeed 
(about  foo  A.D.),  makes  the  famous  declaration  that 
there  are  twenty-two  sacred  books  which  all  Jews  re- 
cognise, and  which  were  composed  before  the  reign  of 
Artaxerxes  (465-425  B.C.),  adding,  "From  Artaxerxes 
to  our  own  age,  the  history  has  been  written  in  detail ; 
but  it  was  not  esteemed  of  the  like  authority  by  our 
forefathers,  because  there  has  not  been  an  exact  suc- 
cession of  Prophets  since  that  time".^  Philo,  too,  a 
contemporary  of  our  Lord  in  Egypt,  who  did  not 
understand  Hebrew,  never  quotes  from  any  but  the 
Palestinian  Canon.  Yet  Josephus  is  not  consistent ; 
for  in  his  Antiquities,  which  are  confessedly  drawn 
from  "  sacred  books,"  he  relies  upon  i  Maccabees  and 
transcribes  passages  out  of  the  Greek  Esther.*  The 
Talmud,   again,   ascribes   Wisdom   to    Solomon,   calls 

'  On  Massoretic  text,  E.  Bi.,  "  Text  and  Versions,"  40-43  ;  Ginsburg, 
ut  supra. 

-Graetz,  Hist.  Jews,  ii.  328  seq.,  Eng.  Tr. 

'^Contr.  Apion,  i.  8.         *  Antiq.,  xx.  11 ;  xii.  5  ;  xi.  6,  etc. 

3* 


36  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Baruch  a  prophetical  writing,  and  quotes  Ecclesiasticus 
by  fornnulas  of  Holy  Writ,  These  alternations  do  not 
prove  that  the  "  second  "  Canon  was  ever  acknowledged 
at  Jerusalem.  But  they  suffice  to  show  that,  after  the 
extinction  of  prophec)',  the  Synagogue  had  not  so  clear 
a  means  of  judging  what  was  canonical  as  would  finally 
determine  the  list.  When,  however,  Christians  had  in 
some  sort  appropriated  the  Septuagint,  a  line  of  de- 
marcation was  suggested  and  the  Alexandrian  additions 
were  put  aside  by  the  Rabbis. 

But  is  Josephus  right  when  he  declares  that  the 
Hebrew  Canon  was  in  fact  completed  during  the  reign 
of  Artaxerxes?  Or  can  we  trust  the  apocryphal  4 
Esdras,  coeval  with  Josephus  (about  84-96  A.D.),  which 
tells  us  that  the  "  Law  was  burnt,"  and  that  Esdras 
the  scribe  was  divinely  inspired  to  recover  it  ?  That/in 
forty  days  he  dictated  to  five  other  scribes  "  twenty-fbur 
books  "  (of  the  Old  Testament),  and  seventy  besides  of 
a  wisdom  more  recondite  ?  ^  Or,  as  touching  the  sacred 
authors,  may  we  put  our  confidence  in  a  passage  from 
the  Talmud  Babli  {Baba  Bathra,  14),  which  attributes 
the  Bible  to  Moses,  Joshua,  Samuel,  David,  Jeremiah, 
Hezekiah  and  "  his  college,"  the  "  men  of  the  Great 
Synagogue,"  and  last  of  all  to  Ezra  ?  \  The  answers  to 
these  difficult  questions  make  up  a  large  part  of  what 
is  now  termed  the  Higher  Criticism. 

"  Only  twenty-two  books,"  says  Josephus,  "  which 
contain  the  records  of  all  past  times ;  which  are  justly 
believed  to  be  divine.  And  of  them  five  belong  to 
Moses,  which  contain  his  Laws  and  the  traditions  of 
the  origin  of  mankind  till  his  death.  This  interval  of 
time  was  little  short  of  three  thousand  years.  But  as 
to  the  time  from  the  death  of  Moses  till  the  reign  of 
Artaxerxes,  the  prophets  who  were  after  Moses  wrote 
down  what  was  done  in  their  times  in  thirteen  books. 
The  remaining  four  contain  hymns   to  God  and  pre- 

^4  Esdras  xiv.  21,  24,  41-47, 


UNFOUNDED  LEGENDS  37 

cepts  for  the  conduct  of  human  \i(e."  It  would  seem 
that  Josephus  took  the  first  apocryphal  "  Esdras  "  in- 
stead of  our  present  "Ezra,"  and  he  "follows  the 
arrangement  and  the  computation  current  in  Alex- 
andria". This  general  view  of  the  Biblical  authors 
which,  as  is  clear,  he  did  not  originate,  prevailed 
among  Jews  and  Christians  until  the  rise  of  scientific 
literary  methods. 

In  itself  4  Esdras  deserves  no  credence  whatever, 
though  certain  of  the  Fathers  probably  accepted  its 
legend  as  a  fact/  Those  who  allow,  as  Irenajus,  that 
"the  sacred  writings  had  been  destroyed  in  the  exile 
under  Nebuchadnezzar"  and  miraculously  reproduced 
by  Ezra,  cannot  be  said  strictly  to  have  held  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Five  Books,  or  the  Prophetic 
of  any  others.  But  we  need  not  lay  stress  on  this 
point.  'Outside  the  testimony  in  our  canonical  Ezra 
which  represents  its  hero  as  "a  ready  scribe  in  the 
law  of  Moses,"  and  the  history  therein  set  down,  we 
possess  no  sure  evidence  concerning  him.'-  That  he 
established  the  "  Great  Synagogue,"  or  that  any  such 
body  existed,  modern  scholars  generally  refuse  to  ad- 
mit. The  conjecture  is  very  recent,  due  to  Elias 
Levita,  who  wrote  on  the  Massorah  in  1538.^  Apart 
from  this,  merely  to  examine  the  passage  in  Bada 
Bathra  to  which  we  have  referred,  will  show  how 
gratuitous  and  incoherent  are  its  afifirmations.  /  "  It 
should  never  be  forgotten,"  says  a  learned  Oxford 
professor,  "  that,  esjiecially  with  regard  to  antiquity, 
the  Talmud  and  other  late  Jewish  writings  abound 
in  idle  conjectures  and  unauthenticated  statements."  * 
And  a  German  Catholic  adds,  "  Any  one  acquainted 
with  documents  of  that  kind  will  know  how  untrust- 
worthy they  are,      Flavius  Josephus,  the  most  com- 

'  Iren.,  iii.  21,  ap.  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  v.  8  ;  Clem.  Al.,  Strom.,  i.  21,  etc. 

'^Ezra  vii.  6,  11,  21 ;  Neh.  viii.  1-3. 

'  Kuenen  says,  cf.  Neh.  viii.-x. 

*  Driver,  Introd.  Lit.  Old  Testament,  xxxv. 


3S  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

petent  of  Jewish  secular  authors,  is  unspeakably  free 
and  inexact  in  matter  of  allegation.  But  the  History  of 
Josephus  would  be  a  classic  when  compared  with  old 
or  new  Rabbinical  literature ;  we  might  describe  it  all 
as  rather  the  Midrash  of  events  than  as  their  historical 
reproduction.  It  is  marked  in  particular  by  a  want 
of  the  critical  sense  which  cannot  fail  to  astonish 
Europeans.''^' 

From  these  and  the  like  arguments  a  conclusion 
follows  of  great  importance.  No  collateral  information 
deserving  of  credit  is  now  available  by  which  to  deter- 
mine the  authors  of  the  Old  Testament.  We  are  thrown 
upon  the  books  themselves  for  data  and  premisses  of 
our  reasoning  about  them  as  critics.  It  is  not  so  as 
regards  the  New  Testament,  which  stands  in  a  very 
different  relation  to  evidence  from  outside.  That 
Moses  and  the  Prophets  are,  indeed,  associated  as 
authors  with  our  sacred  writings  has  ever  been  a  tradi- 
tion ;  but  it  leaves  room  for  problems  at  once  arduous 
and  delicate,  if  not  often  insoluble,  which  the  Fathers 
did  not  undertake  and  the  Church  has  not  in  all  cases 
officially  contemplated.  If  we  are  unable  to  find  a  key 
to  them  in  Scripture  as  it  lies  before  us,  other  sources  of 
information  there  are  none.  Of  course  there  is  a  great 
Oriental  history  from  which  to  borrow  light,  and  we 
must  use  what  it  supplies.  But  Scripture  is,  as  we 
have  seen,  written  Tradition,  attested  by  our  faith  and 
its  keepers.  Hence  to  explain  the  Bible,  under  such 
safeguard,  from  its  own  text,  by  comparison  of  parts, 
research  into  language,  parallel  statements,  and  the  whole 
machinery  of  scientific  scholarship,  is  not  to  forsake 
the  Depositum  but  to  adapt  it  to  our  needs.  In  so 
far  as  by  doing  so  we  clear  up  passages  otherwise  ob- 
scure, take  away  the  reproach  cast  on  Old  Testament 
narratives  or  ethics  by  unbelievers,  or  trace  the  exact 
occasions  from  which  the  Messianic  prophecies  have 

^  V.  Hummelauer,  Excg.  Inspirat.,  ii8. 


GROWTH  OF  HEBREW  CANON  $9 

sprung,  our  enterprise  may  even  be  thought  "  a  going 
on  to  perfection,"  after  the  "  principles  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ"  have  been  laid  down.' 

Canon  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Maccabeus. — Josephus, 
in  the  citation  given  above,  makes  a  threefold  division 
of  Holy  Writ.  The  Prologue  to  Ecclesiasticus  (130 
B.C.)  distinguishes  "  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  other 
Books",  If  the  Canon  was  formed  by  degrees,  which 
no  one  questions,  this  designation  points  to  its  different 
stages.  There  is  no  list  of  authors  in  the  Prologue ;  none 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament  where  a  like  division  tells 
us  of  Moses,  Psalms,  Prophets,  including  manifestly 
the  books  which  all  Jews  acknowledged.  In  2  Mace. 
we  read  that  "  Nehemias  founding  a  library  gathered 
together  the  acts  of  the  Kings,  and  the  prophets,  and 
of  David,  and  the  epistles  of  the  Kings  concerning  the 
holy  gifts ".'-  The  "  Law "  is  here  taken  for  granted, 
as  already  in  existence,  "  brought  by  the  scribe  Ezra  " 
to  Jerusalem.  That  the  Pentateuch  formed  a  canonical 
sacred  document  earlier  than  400  B.C.  we  know  from 
the  Samaritans  who  have  kept  it  independently  of  the 
post-exilic  Jews.  We  may  call  this  recension,  whatever 
it  was,  associated  with  Ezra,  the  first  Hebrew  Canon ; 
and  that  from  Nehemiah's  time  onwards,  described 
above,  the  second.  Then  the  third,  unfinished  and 
debatable,  would  consist  of  the  "  Hagiographa,"  "  in  like 
manner  also  Judas  (Maccabeus)  brought  together  all 
such  things  as  were  lost  by  the  war  ,  .  .  and  they  are 
in  our  possession  ".  These  floated  down  in  controversy 
to  Akiba's  time ;  but  they  had  been  extant  in  Hebrew 
early  enough  to  be  translated  and  bound  up  with  the 
Septuagint,  perhaps  about  100  B.C.  We  bear  in  mind 
always  that  the  LXX.  had  many  authors,  passed 
through  varying  editions,  and  is  no  more  one  book  of 
one  period  than  is  the  Bible  itself. 

Authorship  and  the  Fathers. — Our  next  proceeding 

^  Heb.  V.  12;  vi.  i.         -2  Mace.  ii.  13,  14. 


40  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

takes  us  into  the  thick  of  modern  research.  The 
Fathers  had  no  tradition  to  go  upon  except  those  scat- 
tered hints,  quite  uncritical,  thrown  out  by  the  Jews. 
Mediaeval  scholastics  were  not  concerned  with  questions 
of  authorship,  language,  history,  or  sources.  Real  criti- 
cism dates  from  the  seventeenth  century ;  from  Richard 
Simon,  the  Oratorian,  and  his  work  on  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (Paris,  1678),  but  its  ascertained  results  belong 
to  the  last  forty  years.  Remark,  as  a  prelude  to  our 
account  of  them,  the  following  : — 

No  decision,  fixing  the  authorship  of  a  sacred 
volume,  was  till  lately  given  at  Rome.  The  titles 
in  the  Canon  are  not  inspired.  Like  those  of  Papal 
documents  they  serve  as  rubrics  to  the  matter,  not  as 
subscriptions  guaranteeing  the  writer's  name.  "  The 
'  history  of  Livy,' "  says  Hobbes,  "  denotes  the  writer, 
but  the  '  history  of  Scanderbeg '  is  denominated  from 
the  subject."  ^  Even  should  we  meet  them  in  the  work 
itself,  they  need  not  be  more  than  pseudepigraphs,  as  is 
clear  from  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  which  no  authority 
binds  us  to  trace  back  to  the  son  of  David.  Every 
title,  therefore,  stands  or  falls  by  its  own  merits.  This 
does  not  imply  that  all  questions  regarding  the  author 
may  be  treated  as  indifferent.  If  St.  Paul,  for  example, 
be  denied  his  Epistles  undoubtedly  the  faith  is  concerned 
to  refute  such  hypotheses  ;  but  in  many  books  of  Scrip- 
ture it  is  otherwise ;  we  do  not  know  and  are  not  called 
on  to  find  out,  who  wrote  Kings,  Chronicles,  Job,  Mac- 
cabees, to  mention  no  others.  Hence  it  is  patent  that 
(inspiration,  though  admitted,  does  not  tell  us  anything 
about  the  author  except  the  bare  fact  that  he  was  in- 
spired. He  may  be  unknown,  or  even  pseudonymous, 
a  compiler  and  editor  as  well  as  an  original  historian, 
poet,  or  legislator.  In  itself,  the  problem  of  authorship 
belongs  to  criticism ;  it  touches  the  faith  only  in  certain 
cases,  and  of  these  the  Church  is  judge. 

^Leviathan,  xxxiii.  173. 


VIEWS  OF  AUTHORSHIP  4^ 

"  It  does  not  much  signify,"  says  Melchior  Canus, 
Tridentine  theologian,  writing  in  1563,  "to  the  Catholic 
faith  that  any  book  was  written  by  this  or  that  author, 
so  long  as  the  Holy  Spirit  is  believed  to  be  the  author 
of  it."  1  He  refers  to  St.  Gregory  the  Great  who  calls 
the  question  "  very  superfluous,"  and  even  "  ridiculous," 
^s  though  we  should  ask  with  what  pen  a  man  wrote 
his  letter.  St.  Thomas,  having  these  words  in  view,  re- 
marks, "  It  seems  in  a  way  superstitious  that  one  should 
be  very  careful  to  inquire  touching  the  instrumental 
causes  [z'.e.  human  writers]  of  the  Sacred  Scripture".'^ 
St.  Augustine  looks  on  such  disputes  with  indifference, 
and  St.  Chrysostom  equally.=^  So  Theodoret,  "  What 
matter  if  a  Psalm  be  of  one  or  other,  since  it  is  plain 
that  all  are  written  by  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?"  *  On 
this  account  the  Fathers  merely  repeat  what  they  have 
heard  from  the  Jews,  are  divergent  in  their  ascriptions, 
and  betray  none  of  the  anxiety  which  is  so  marked  in 
them  where  the  "analogy  of  faith"  seems  imperilled. 
Not  even  St.  Jerome  thinks  it  his  duty  to  be  copious 
and  accurate  on  this  head  ;  he  writes  with  supreme 
tranquillity :  "  whether  you  please  ivohieris)  to  call 
Moses  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  Ezra  the  restorer 
(Jnstmtratorejn)  of  the  same  work  ".^ 

Coming  down  to  modern  theologians,  we  find  similar 
principles  expressed  by  Masius,  Salmeron,  Bellarmine, 
Lorinus,  Pineda.*^  One  of  the  latest,  P'ather  Billot,  S.J., 
while  denying  that "  universally,  questions  concerning  the 
persons  of  biblical  writers  belong  to  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism as  to  a  reserved  province,"  declares  nevertheless, 
"It  is  of  no  consequence  as  regards  the  nature  of  an 

'  Dc  Locis,  i.  II. 

^  Greg.  M.,  Praf.  in  Job  (Migne,  P.  L.,  Ixxv.  517).  St.  Th.,  Proem. 
Sec.  Expos.  Cant. 

*  Aug.,  De  Consensu  Evang.,  iii.  7  ;  Chrysost.,  Horn,  in  Gen.  ii.  2. 
••Theod.,  Praf.  in  Ps.  (Migne,  P.  G.,  Ixxx.  S61). 

^Jerome,  Contr.  Helvid.  (Migne.  P.  L.,  xxiii.,  190). 

*  See  passages  and  references  in  Hummelauer,  Exeg.  Inspir.  103, 
105. 


42  THE   TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

inspired  book  who  was  its  instrumental  author  ".^    The 
restriction  imph'ed  may  be  sometimes  of  grave  import- 
>4         ance ;  but  if  a  general  axiom  is  to  prevail,  we  must 
v  accept  it  from  the  unanimous  consent  of  Fathers  and 

divines  just  indicated.  Inspiration  is  neither  dependent 
en  known  and  acknowledged  authorship  nor  contermin- 
ous with  it.  "  And  where  inspiration  does  not  set  bounds 
the  critic  is  free.  Of  course  he  is  never  free  to  indulge 
caprice,  do  violence  to  texts,  or  scorn  historical  proofs 
when  they  are  forthcoming.  But  such  maxims  apply 
to  all  criticism,  and  are  not  derived  from  the  sacredness 
of  the  writing  under  examination. 

So  much  for  the  principles  which  Catholic  tradition 
observes. 

Historical  and  Literary  Tests. — Furthermore,  the 
critic,  in  dealing  with  Bible  documents,  will  not  pursue 
methods  which  elsewhere  would  be  contrary  to  reason. 
The  story  of  Israel,  like  that  of  Hellas  or  Babylonia, 
comes  down  in  varied  forms, — writings,  memorials,  re- 
miniscences which  feasts  and  customs  embody,  and  in 
the  people  so  far  as  they  still  survive.  All  this  affords 
data  of  comparison  and  verification.  The  documents 
do  not  stand  alone.  Should  those  hitherto  deemed  the 
/^oldest  turn  out  to  be  more  recent,  it  is  yet  possible  that 
they  were  founded  on  very  ancient  materials,  and  that 
evidence  of  such  antiquity  can  be  gained  by  looking 
into  them  with  a  view  to  it.  The  sources  may  go  back 
demonstrably  to  a  period  which  later  editing  has  not 
obscured.  Institutions  need  not  be  recent,  although 
I  our  actual  record  of  them  is  comparatively  modern. 
Traditions  and  usages  have  existed  among  nations  for 
centuries  without  being  inscribed  on  brick  or  parch- 
ment. Oral  history  goes  on  from  one  generation  to 
another,  irrespective  of  chroniclers.  Thus,  were  the 
Iliad  a  cento  put  into  shape  under  Pisistratus  in  the 
sixth  century  B.C.  (an  opinion  once  widely  held),  that 

^  Vid.  Ilummelauer,  I.e.,  log,  113. 


SOME  LA  WS  OF  CRITICISM  43 

would  not  hinder  it  from  being  what  it  is,  a  faithful 
picture  of  the  old  heroic  times.  Nor  would  it  make 
the  war  of  Tro)'  incredible,  supposing  we  had  no  other 
grounds  on  which  to  question  that  war.  Archaeology 
might  even  supply  proofs  from  its  own  stores  ample 
enough  to  corroborate  the  Athenian  Homer  and  to  re- 
veal a  substratum  of  fact  underneath  his  poetic  handling. 
It  is  well  known  that  something  of  this  nature  has 
taken  place  with  regard  to  Troy,  Mycense,  and  Crete. 
But  the  illustration  will  suffice. 

On  the  other  side,  literary  tests,  however  delicate,  are 
not  unreal.  Certain  differences  of  language,  style  and 
thought,  carry  in  their  train  undeniable  distinction  of 
authors.  It  would  be  trifling  to  imagine  that  the  char- 
acteristics which  belong  to  all  human  compositions  are 
absent  from  Scripture.  And  if  present,  they  can  be 
detected  by  the  received  critical  tests  and  standards. 
Since  the  Bible  is  a  library  of  books,  those  volumes  will 
be  subject  to  the  laws  that  govern  all  books  whatsoever, 
— among  them  to  the  laws  which  discriminate  idioms, 
allusions,  local  colour,  and  the  author's  personal  traits 
or  peculiarities.  We  should  not  forget,  moreover,  that 
the  chief  conclusions  of  a  sound  criticism  are  furnished, 
not  by  literary  analysis  alone,  but  by  a  cumulative  argu- 
ment drawn  from  the  growth  of  institutions  as  the  Bible 
discloses  it,  or  from  the  history  studied  in  eveiy  light 
which  it  will  yield. 


CHAPTER  ir. 

PENTATEUCH  OR  HEXATEUCH ? 

Beginninsfs  of  Modern  Views. — We  have  now  to 
consider  our  first  problem.  The  legend  of  an  Esdras  In- 
stauratorxurrent  before  loo  A.D,,  and  never  denied  by  the 
Christian  Fathers,  might  seem  to  "  prescribe,"  as  Tertul- 
lian  speaks,  against  too  literal  an  acceptance  of  Mosaic  or 
Prophetic  authorship  in  our  strong  modern  sense.  Thus, 
too,  the  Clementine  Homilist  (150-200),  who  ventures 
on  a  denial  which  cannot  be  sustained,  "the  Law  of  God 
was  given  by  Moses  without  writing,  and  was  written 
by  some  one,  not  by  Moses".  Leaving  out  mediaeval 
Hebrew  disputants,  we  find  Carlstadt  (f  1541)  among 
the  Reformers  saying,  "  It  may  be  held  that  Moses  was 
not  the  writer  of  the  five  books".  Andreas  Maas 
(Masius),  a  Catholic  (f  1573),  taught  that  some  late 
editor  had  revised  the  Pentateuch ;  and  so  did  Bonfrere, 
S.J.  (f  1643),  and  Calmet,  O.S.B.  (f  1757).  Bonfrere  in 
163 1  {perceived  that  "the  Book  of  Joshua  is  rightly 
joined  on  in  order  to  the  books  of  Moses,  since  it  con- 
tinues the  history  and  includes  the  end  to  which  the 
wanderings  of  the  Patriarchs  and  the  Exodus  look  for- 
ward ".^  In  other  words,  there  is  a  Hexateuch.  Thomas 
Hobbes,  the  freethinker,  in  his  Leviatlian  (165 1)  says, 
"  The  five  books  of  Moses  were  written  after  his  time, 
though  how  long  after  it  be  not  so  manifest '' ?  Spinoza 
in  his  Tractate  (1670)  denies  that  the  Pentateuch  is  an 

'Compressed  from  V.  Hiigel's  quotation,  Dub.  Rev.,  No.  233,  p. 

^  L«t;«Vj<//aH,  xxxiii.  173. 

44 


THE  MOSAIC  PROBLEM  45 

autograph  of  Moses,  and  quotes  Eben  Ezra  (f  1167), 
who  has  anticipated  the  arguments  drawn  from  ana- 
chronisms, etc.,  which  bear  on  his  contention.  "  We 
conclude,"  says  the  philosopher  of  Amsterdam,  "  that 
the  book  of  the  Law  of  God  which  Moses  wrote  was 
not  the  Pentateuch."  He  conjectured  that  Ezra  was 
the  real  author,  and  wrote  the  historical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament.^  Richard  Simon,  a  iew  years  later,  by 
his  Critical  History  of  the  Old  Testament  (1678), 
challenged  the  common  view  on  a  ground  not  unlike 
Spinoza's,  but  more  in  detail,  calling  attention  to  the 
many  "doublets,"  or  repetitions,  which  abound  in  nar- 
ratives hitherto  considered  of  one  texture,  and  to  the 
diversities  of  style.  He  also  distinguished  between  the 
laws  and  the  history,  attributing  the  latter  to  public 
^notaries — the  "  Sophcrim," — who  were  chroniclers  by 
appointment.  To  Simon  we  may  add  the  Socinian, 
Le  Clerc  (1685). 

What  we  should  observe  here  is  the  concord  of 
schools  and  critics  who  were  opposed  in  other  ways ; 
of  Ebionite,  Protestant,  Jew,  with  unbeliever  and  Catho- 
lic, in  the  same  negative  established  on  particulars,  not 
on  assumptions  a  priori.  True  it  is,  as  remarked  by 
Spinoza,  that  "  almost  every  one  has  believed  Moses  to 
be  author  of  the  Pentateuch ;  nay,  so  pertinaciously 
have  the  Pharisees  upheld  it,  that  they  take  any  man 
for  a  heretic  who  deems  otherwise".-  And  Bossuet's 
treatment  of  Pere  Simon  is  a  well-known  chapter.  But 
the  clue  thrown  out  was  followed  up  by  Astruc,  a 
Catholic  physician,  who  in  1753  published  his  epoch- 
making  discovery  of  two  documents  (A  and  B)  in  the 
Book  of  Genesis,  each  having  its  own  name  for  the 
Deity — Elohim  (God)  in  one  ca.'^e.  and  in  the  other,  as  it 
was  then  written,  Jehovah  (the  Lord).  These  positions 
ol  Astruc,  modified  in  part  by  more  recent  criticism, 


'  Tract.  Thco.-Polit.,  viii.  125-38.  Tauchnitz  ed. 
■^Ibid.,  125. 


4-6  THE   TRADITION   OF  SCRIPTURE 

are  substantially  admitted  to-day  on  all  hands.^  In 
1798  Ilgen  made  out  a  second  Elohist  (now  the  docu- 
ment E),  and  not  much  of  his  finding  is  disputed.^  Eich- 
horn  introduced  the  dichotomy  of  Astruc  to  German 
scholars.  The  Higher  Criticism  began  its  remarkable 
and  too  often  erratic  course  with  a  "  fragment-hypoth- 
esis". But  the  next  advance  came  from  De_\\''ette, 
who,  in  1805,  asserted  that  Deuteronomy  was  thel)Ook 
found  under  Josiah  in  623  B.C.  (2  Kings  xxii.  8),  and  that 
it  formed  the  latest  addition  to  the  Mosaic  record.  De 
Wette  is  reckoned  the  father  of  historical  criticism  as 
applied  to  Holy  Scripture.  He  was  not  a  Rationalist, 
as  the  term  was  then  understood.  According  to  him 
the  Pentateuch  is  legend  and  poetry ;  the  "  Laws  of 
Moses  "  are  not  antecedents  of  a  later  history  to  which 
they  were  unknown  ;  and  Jewish  scribes  have  rewritten 
the  chronicles  of  their  nation  so  as  to  bring  them  into 
conformity  with  an  idealised  state  of  things  which  had 
never  actually  existed. 

Theories  of  Reuss,  Graf,  Wellhausen. — From  this 
man,  after  numerous  adventures  that  brought  little  credit 
to  the  Higher  Criticism,  were  derived  the  principles  on 
which  Vatke,  George,  and  Reuss  led  up  to  the  hypo- 
thesis of  Graf  which  is  now  in  the  ascendant  Reuss 
in  1833  formulated  twelve  conclusions,  not  published 
until  1879,  which  carried  the  whole  position.  He  dis- 
tinguished bet^veen  the  history  and  the  laws  in  Penta- 
teuch. Either  might  be  in  existence,  though  unwritten. 
The  national  traditions  of  Israel  were  older  than  the 
"  Mosaic "  laws  and  on  record  earlier.  Hence  the  de- 
velopment of  laws  should  be  carefully  searched  into. 
Judges,  Samuel,  Kings  in  part,  contradict  the  laws  of 
Moses,  which  cannot  therefore  have  been  known  to 
their  writers,  any  more  than  they  were  to  the  Prophets 
of  800-700  B.C.    Jeremiah  first  knew  of  a  written  Code ; 

^Vigouroux,  Livres  Saints,  etc.,  iii.  134,  144;  G'igot,Spec.  Introd., 
88-92. 

-V.  Hiigel,  Docs.  Hexat.,  25. 


DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS  47 

his  quotations  belong  to  Deuteronomy,  which  is  the 
oldest  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  and  is  the  book  said 
to  have  been  found  in  the  time  of  Josiah.  This  divides 
the  histor>'  of  Israel  into  its  determining  parts.  Ezekiel 
lived  before  the  ritual  code  was  definitely  organised  and 
the  laws  of  the  hierarchy  established.  The  Book  of 
Joshua  is  by  no  means  the  latest  portion  of  the  whole 
work  (Hexateuch).  And  the  editor  was  not  the  ancient 
prophet  Moses.^ 

Except  in  one  single  point,  regarding  the  age  of 
Deuteronomy,  this  programme  has  in  general  been 
adopted  by  nearly  all  modern  non-Catholic  students  of 
the  Bible.  But  the  ideas  of  Reuss  and  Vatke  "  lay 
dormant  for  thirty  years,"  until  Graf  in  1866  extended 
and  enforced  them  independently.  He  suggested  the 
order  of  documents  which  is  now  followed  ;  leaving  by 
his  death  to  Kuenen  (1869),  Kayser  (1874),  ^"^  Well- 
hausen  (i  876-1878),  the  task  since  then  all  but  accom- 
plished of  working  out  the  evidence  for  it  in  "  scientific" 
detail,  if  we  grant  these  premisses. 

Documents  J.  E.,  D.,  P. — Let  us  now  inquire  what 
the  "  documentary  hypothesis  "  makes  of  the  Pentateuch. 
On  our  attitude  towards  it  will  depend  any  general 
view  which  we  take  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon. 
While  doing  so  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  by  no 
breaking  up  or  post-dating  of  canonical  books  is  it 
implied  that  the  Torah  did  not  exist  ere  they  were 
written.  On  all  hands  it  is  admitted  (i)  that  "oral 
decisions  of  priests  at  the  sanctuary "  go  back  many 
centuries  before  such  possible  redactions ;  and  (2)  that 
Moses  "  may  have  been  the  founder  of  the  Torah ". 
Wellhausen  writes  of  him  that,  at  Kadesh-Barnea  "  he 
founded  a  stable  centre  for  a  legal  tradition,  and  be- 
came the  originator  of  the  Torah  in  Israel,  by  means  of 
which  the  sense  of  community  and  the  conviction  of 
God  gained  a  positive  ideal  content".-     "  It  cannot  be 

'  E.  Bi.,  "  Hexateuch,"  4-11. 

'^Wdlh.,  Geschichte  Isr.,  17,  434,  438,  etc. 


48  THE   TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

doubted,"  says  Driver,  "  that  Moses  was  the  ultimate 
founder  of  both  the  national  and  religious  life  of  Israel "  ; 
he  it  was  who  gave  them  the  nucleus  of  a  system  of 
civil  laws  and  ceremonial  ordinances  ;  and  it  is  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  "his  teaching  is  preserved,  in  a 
modified  form,  in  the  Decalogue  and  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant ".  Nor  can  we  doubt  that  he  set  up  a  priest- 
hood ;  or  that  it  was  hereditary,  and  had  its  own  tra- 
dition of  ritual.  Hence  the  "  ark  and  the  tent  of  meet- 
ing "  belong  to  the  Mosaic  age ;  Aaron  the  "  Levite  " 
held  an  official  dignity;  and  the  "tribe  of  Levi"  had 
priestly  duties  and  privileges.  In  its  basis  and  origin 
Hebrew  legislation  was  derived  from  Moses. ^  Since 
these  words  were  printed,  the  discovery  of  Hamjaurabi's  , 
Code  graven  on  stone,  at  Susa  (1901),  which  dates  back 
to  the  period  2350  B.C.,  has  thrown  a  flood  of  light  on 
the  legal  procedures  of  high  antiquity,  while  curious 
parallels  and  contrasts  to  the  enactments  in  our  Penta- 
teuch are  exhibited  in  the  282  paragraphs  of  the  Baby- 
lonian Lawbook.' 

These,  then,  are  the  allegations  upon  which  modern 
critics  deny  that  Moses  wrote  the  Five  Books  as  we 
now  possess  them  : — 

Three  strata  of  laws,  they  say,  are  discoverable  in 
the  so-called  Mosaic  legislation,  not  agreeing  with  one 
another,  but  corresponding  with  as  many  distinct  periods 
of  histoiy  and  worship.  Remember  always  that  the  Old 
Testament  is  not  one  book,  but  is  made  up  of  documents 
varying  in  age  and  authorship,  which  may  consequently 
be  cited  as  independent  and  external  evidence,  though 
all  now  printed  between  the  covers  of  a  single  volume. 
Briefly,  there  are  : — 

(i)  Laws  of  First  Period,  corresponding  to  documents 
Jahwist-Elohist  (J.  E.)  and  illustrated  by  Exodus  xx. 
24,  26.     Many  altars  in  use  not  of  permanent  struc- 

1  Driver,  Introd.,  144-46.     See  Kautzsch,  "Israel,"  D.  B.,  Extra  Vol. 
-Johns,  Babyl.  a7id  Assyr.  Law  Contracts  and  Letters.  Transl.  of 
Code,  44  67. 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES  49 

tiire,  high  places  like  Shechem,  sacred  trees,  wells, 
mazzeboth.  Date,  as  regards  usage,  perhaps  a  century 
after  Solomon.     J.  E.  written  750  B.C. 

(2)  Laws  of  Second  Period,  corresponding  to  Deuter- 
onomy, polemical  as  maintaining  one  altar,  permanent, 
with  steps,  at  Jerusalem,  and  putting  down  high  places 
as  forbidden  by  Divine  enactment.  This  Code  begins 
in  Deuteronomy  xii.,  is  known  as  D.,  and  its  publication 
fixed  to  year  622  B.C.    May  have  been  written  about  650. 

(3)  Laws  of  Third  Period,  corresponding  to  Priestly 
Code  (P.  C),  which  takes  for  granted  the  one  sanctuary — 
the  tabernacle — and  is  post-exilic.    Date  444  to  397  B.C. 

Order  of  Documents  is,  therefore,  J.  E.,  D.,  P.  C. — 
To  prove  this  relation  of  D.  and  P.  C.  (For  that  J.  E. 
belongs  to  much  earlier  times  is  argued  from  grounds 
above,  and  will  be  further  drawn  out.)  When  local 
shrines,  which  did  undoubtedly  flourish  down  to  Josiah, 
were  taken  away,  the  question  arose  what  to  do  with 
local  priests.  Deuteronomy,  in  which  they  appear  as 
Levites,  permits  them  to  offer  sacrifice  in  Jerusalem. 
But  they  never  did  so,  being  opposed  by  the  sons 
of  Zadok,  or  the  royal  chaplains  who  dated  from 
Solomon's  time.  And  Ezekiel  (592  B.C.)  finds  a  reason 
for  putting  aside  the  legislation  of  D.  as  regards  them, 
in  their  compliance  with  idolatrous  practices,  "  when 
Israel  went  astray  ".  The  divine  oracle  afifirms,  "  They 
shall  not  come  near  unto  me  to  do  the  office  of  a  priest 
.  .  .  but  I  will  make  them  keepers  of  the  charge  of  the 
house,  for  all  the  service  thereof".^  In  D.  the  Levites 
have  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  the  linen  or  gold 
ephod,  and  minister  at  great  shrines."  In  Ezekiel  the 
ornaments  of  priesthood  are  resewed  to  "  the  Levites, 
the  sons  of  Zadok,"  to  which  house  the  prophet  himself 
belonged.  The  absolute  distinction  between  "  priests  " 
and  mere  "  Levites"  occurs  only  in  Chronicles  and  in 
P.  C,  where  it  is  taken  as  ordained  b)'-  Moses  (Num. 

^  Ezek.  xliv.  10,  13,  14.         ^  Deut.  xxxiii. 


50  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

xviii,  2-6).  Hence  when  Ezekiel  wrote,  it  was  not  a 
settled  thing,  for  he  brings  an  oracle  to  decide  it ;  and 
P,  C.  cannot  have  been  in  existence,  much  less  ac- 
knowledged for  the  work  of  the  great  law-giver.  The 
concentration  of  powers  at  Jerusalem  and  the  setting 
down  of  local  priests  to  be  ministers  under  the  family 
of  Zadok  was  a  gradual  process,  marked  by  steps  like 
these. 

Again  J.  E.  and  even  D.  indicate  that  the  early  dues, 
paid  to  Jahweh,  not  to  the  priests,  were  sacrificial  meals 
at  festivals  in  the  various  holy  places.  But  P.  C.  lays 
down  a  system  of  taxes  to  be  paid  at  Jerusalem  to  the 
clergy,  and  so  burdensome  that  they  cannot  be  re- 
conciled with  what  is  known  to  have  been  the  king's 
dominion  over  the  first  Temple.  Moreover,  Ezekiel 
has  nothing  to  say  of  such  a  High  Priest  as  the  Aaron 
of  P.  C. ;  but  he  allows  much  to  the  "  Prince,"  while 
endeavouring  to  limit  his  rights  within  the  sanctuary.^ 
The  High  Priest  in  P.  C.  alone  has  the  Urim  and 
Thummim ;  his  sons,  and  none  other,  succeed  in  his 
place ;  he  wears  crown  and  royal  robe,  and  is  exactly 
what  the  head  of  the  sacerdotal  order  came  to  be  after 
the  kingdom  had  ceased,  when  Israel  was  no  more 
independent  but  simply  a  Church  under  heathen  rule. 
That  state  of  things,  which  cannot  be  traced  in  olden 
times  (Judges  or  Samuel),  is  found  after  the  Exile,  and 
P.  C.  with  its  legislation  corresponds  to  the  Second 
Temple.  It  is  the  latest  of  Pentateuchal  documents. 
Or,  to  sum  up,  Judges  and  Samuel  are  acquainted  only 
with  legislation  exhibited  in  J.  E.  ;  i  and  2  Kings 
allow  us  to  follow  the  struggle  between  that  less  cen- 
tralised form  and  Deuteronomy  which  was  an  effort  to 
have  done  with  it ;  Chronicles  only  is  an  echo  of  P.  C.- 

The  Argument  from  History. — Two  points  in  this 
reasoning  deserve  our  attention.  It  is  not  a  priori ; 
for  instance,  it  does  not  deny  the  art  of  writing  to 

'  Ezek.  xlvi.  i-i8. 

"Hastings,  D.  B.,  "  Hexateuch  "  ;  E.  Bi.,  2050-57. 


APPEAL  TO  HISTORY  5 1 

Moses  or  his  generation,  neither  does  it  ai)i)cal  to 
minute  differences  of  style  as  determining  how  he 
must  have  written,  if  at  all.  But  it  appeals  to  the 
history  of  public  institutions, — festivals,  priesthood,  altar 
and  Temple  service, — which  is  extant  in  records  sever- 
ally independent.  We  may  call  this  internal  criticism, 
for  it  lies  inside  the  Old  Testament ;  but  as  evidence 
it  is  external  to  the  question  which  we  are  discussing, 
vis.,  Did  Moses  write  the  whole  Pentateuch  ?  Now, 
were  the  Five  Books  composed  in  one  literary  style  from 
Genesis  to  Deuteronomy,  these  historical  differences,  to 
which  Jud.,  Sam.,  Kings,  Chr.,  Ezekiel,  bear  witness, 
would  remain  what  they  are.  The  problem  would  still  be, 
can  the  same  law-giver  have  issued  in  forty  years  three 
dTvei^ent  and  conflicting  series  of  laws,  intended  to 
r'egulate  worship  for  all  time  to  come?  It  is  not  re- 
solved by  supposing,  entirely  without  warrant  from 
the  text,  that  Moses  laid  down  provisional  enactments 
suited  to  a  camp  in  the  Desert,  and  abrogated  them 
by  others  which  had  in  view  a  people  settled  at  home, 
far  from  the  Tabernacle.  When  we  examine  the 
passages  quoted  above  and  their  context,  we  feel  that 
such  a  method  of  interpretation  is  no  less  arbitrary 
than  artificial.  To  imagine  that  Moses  anticipated  in 
a  theoretic  way,  without  occasion  or  demand,  the  in- 
volved cases  and  their  solution  which  take  up  so  much 
of  Leviticus,  Numbers,  Deut.,  it  has  been  said,  is  to 
suppress  the  development  of  Israel  on  religious  lines. 
Can  we  quote  a  parallel  ?  ^ 

Again,  no  weight  has  been  laid  on  parenthetical 
statements  which  cannot  be  attributed  to  Moses, 
whether  historical,  "The  Canaanite  was  then  in  the 
land  "  (Gen.  xii.  6),  "  Before  there  reigned  any  king 
over  the  children  of  Israel"  (Gen.  xxxvi.  31),  or  geo- 
graphical, as  the  names  of  Hebron  and  Dan,  belonging 
to  a  later  time,  and  points  of  the  compass  indicating  a 

*  Hoberg,  Die  Genesis,  xxv. ;  Lagrange,  Lectures,  173,  Eng.  Tr. 

4* 


52  THE   TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Palestinian  writer,  etc.  Interpolations,  if  such  there 
were,  of  this  kind,  would  prove  nothing  against  a 
general  authorship.  The'  argument  is  neither  captious 
nor  narrow,  but  derived  from  a  survey  of  events  and 
writings  extending  over  centuries.  Yet  the  number 
of  such  editorial  comments  is  very  far  from  inconsider- 
able, and  they  add  to  the  strength  of  the  conclusion 
(which  does  not  rely  upon  them)  when  it  has  once 
been  granted — but  that  is  the  question. 

The  Literary  Analysis. — Let  us  turn  to  the  literary 
analysis.  The  Hexateuch  contains  211  chapters,  of 
which  79  belong  to  J.  E.  including  6  chapters  of  ancient 
poetry ;  30  to  D. ;  89  to  P.  C.  ;  5  to  the  Redactor  (R.), 
i.e.,  to  some  uncertain  sources.  Thus  J.  E.  takes  up 
more  than  one-third,  D.  one-fifth,  P.  C.  three-sevenths. 
Of  the  79  chapters  J.  E.,  only  5  are  legal  summaries ; 
but  D.  has  23  out  of  30 ;  and  P.  C.  56  out  of  89.^ 
Again,  the  Jahwist  has  124  words  and  expressions 
peculiar  to  himself ;  the  Elohist  has  y6 ;  the  Deuterono- 
mist  107;  the  Priestly  Writer  in.  These  numbers 
do  not  include  proper  names.  A  significant  detail  is 
that  D.  has  more  than  200  words  in  common  with 
Jeremiah,  whose  "  call "  was  628  B.C.  It  is  always  easy 
to  recognise  the  Priestly  Writer;  we  find  D.  almost 
continuous  ;  J.  offers  large  passages  of  his  own,  and  so 
does  E.  But  remark  that  for  critical  results  it  is  not 
the  distinction  between  E.  and  J.  which  is  most  im- 
portant, but  that  between  J.  E.  and  P.  C.  Hence  it 
matters  comparatively  not  much  when  difficulties  meet 
us  in  disentangling  the  J.  E.  sections,  of  which  we  shall 
speak  by-and-by.'  Each  of  the  four  strata  is  present  in 
long  and  pure  succession  without  intermixture  ;  each 
can  be  exhibited  by  special  type,  as  is  now  often  done. 
So  that,  if  Moses  "  wrote  "  the  Pentateuch,  he  compiled 
it  from  these  four  documents.  But  if  J .  E.  can  be  traced 
into  Joshua,  which  the  critics  attempt  by  analysis,  and 

»V.  Hiigel,  Docs.  Hexat.,  5 

*  J.  and  E.  divided  easily  in  Gen. ;  not  in  Exod.  or  later. 


FEATURES  OF  DOCUMENTS  53 

D.  likewise,  it  follows  that  Moses,  however  mcny  laws 
he  promulgated  still  to  be  found  in  Exod.-Deut.,  was 
not  the  actual  writer,  though  furnishing  materials  to 
other  pens. 

Some  general  characteristics  may  be  noted.  Each 
of  these  alleged  writers  is  consistent  in  his  handling  and 
his  point  of  view.  He  does  not  contradict  himself. 
There  is  a  similar  framework,  or  arrangement,  in  all 
four  which  allowed  of  their  fusion  in  the  Hexateuch ; 
but  we  are  sensible  as  we  pass  from  one  to  another  that 
the  intention  is  not  the  same.  In  J.  E.  contrasted  with 
P.  C.  the  difference  reaches  its  maximum.  J.  is  believed 
to  have  written  in  the  Southern  Kingdom,  or  Judah ; 
while  E.  appears  to  be  of  the  North,  or  an  "  Israelite  ". 
These  two  earlier  story-tellers  take  us  back  to  the 
popular  traditions,  the  folklore  and  ancient  tales,  where 
the  adventures  of  the  hero  fill  the  whole  canvas  and 
what  we  now  term  romance  colours  the  atmosphere. 
They  form,  so  to  call  it,  a  Sagencychis  or  world  of 
heroic  episodes,  over  which  the  idea  of  Monotheism  is 
everywhere  visible.     Their  breath  is  poetr}^ 

Quite  foreign  to  all  this,  in  P.  C.  we  have  to  deal  with 
a  legal  mind  which  does  not  linger  upon  the  picturesque 
and  human,  but  subordinates  narrative  to  a  religious 
philosophy  or  to  the  development  of  worship  from 
primitive  times  until  it  grew  into  the  full  Covenant  with 
Israel.  P.  C.  is  antiquarian — a  Canon  Law  which  ab- 
sorbs into  itself  and  sums  up  in  fewest  words  the  sacred 
history  that  had  been  vividly  set  forth  by  J.  E.  Its 
design  is  "  pragmatic,"  in  other  terms  it  reduces  events 
to  a  "whereas,"  from  which  enactments  are  drawn  out 
and  enforced.  That  lawyer  cannot  have  been  the  man, 
it  is  argued,  who  gave  us  the  story  of  Jacob  or  Joseph; 
and  why  should  he  have  been  ? 

The  Deuteronomist,  however,  as  we  might  expect, 
occupies  a  middle  station  and  wields  a  more  concrete 
style.  He  keeps  J.  E.  before  him  ;  but  "from  time  to 
time  shows  a  leaning  to  the  points  of  view  characteristic 


54  THE   TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

of  the  priestly  narrator  ".  And  his  moralising  method, 
not  so  much  individual  as  common  to  a  school  of  re- 
formers, may  be  pursued  through  the  Books  of  Kings, 
all  the  way  back  to  Samuel  and  Judges,  even  to  the 
conquest  under  Joshua.  Obviously,  it  had  little  scope 
in  the  story  of  the  Patriarchs  or  the  still  more  ancient 
days  before  Abraham.  Deuteronomy  holds  out  "  an 
ideal  of  the  religious  community  and  its  worship,  pro- 
jected into  the  golden  age  of  the  past  as  Ezekiel's  is 
projected  into  the  golden  age  of  the  future  ". 

Having  an  "appearance  of  statistical  exactness  in 
matters  of  chronology,  genealogy,  census-lists,  and  the 
like,"  it  was  inferred  that  P.  C-  "had  access  to  ancient 
documentary  records ".  But  the  numbers  which  at 
present  it  ^contains  were  questioned  by  Colenso,  before 
its  distinction  as  a  stratum  of  the  Hexateuch  had  been 
pointed  out.  Extreme  modern  critics  allege  in  its  dis- 
paragement the  lateness  of  certain  portions  (P.  G.)  and 
the  character  of  its  information.  Yet  very  ancient 
customs  are  imbedded  in  it,  as  the  "  avenger  of  blood  " 
(Num.  XXXV.  2i).  That  additions  were  made  to  it, 
especially  by  groups  of  laws;  that  its  fusion  with  J.  E. 
and  D.  took  place  after  the  Exile ;  that  a  "  priestly 
redaction  "  governed  by  its  ideas  was  extended  over 
Jud.,  Sam.,  Kings;  and  that  in  this  way  "the  great 
Hebrew  history  which  we  possess  from  the  Creation  to 
the  fall  of  Judah  "  assumed  its  present  form, — these  were 
conclusions  insisted  on  by  the  Higher  Criticism  as  neces- 
sary for  a  correct  view  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon. ^ 

Diatessaron  as  Parallel  to  Hexateuch. — An  ingen- 
ious parallel  might  be  suggested  between  these  four 
documents  and  the  four  Gospels  ;  and  the  Hexateuch 
itself  has  been  likened  to  Tatian's  "  Diatessaron,"  7.e., 
Harmony  of  the  Evangelists,  supposing  our  Greek 
originals  of  the  latter  were  not  known  except  in  Tatian's 
quoted  selections.     The  Gospel  of  St.  John  (which  was 

^E.  Bi.,  "Hist.  Lit.  Old  Testament,"  sees.  lo,  u. 


MOSES  THE  ORIGINATOR  55 

his  Grundschrift)  would  illustrate  in  tendency  and 
structure  the  attitude  of  P.  C.  towards  its  predecessors. 
And  if  Tatian  had  called  his  work  after  its  principal 
source,  we  should  not  charge  him  with  forgery.  The 
historical  truth  of  each  portion  is  really  maintained  by 
referring  it  to  its  proper  date,  and  by  finding  its  context 
in  the  world-movement  around.^  So  far  as  its  materials 
are  pre-Mosaic,  there  is  no  reason  why  Moses  himself 
should  not  have  dealt  with  them  in  writings  on  which 
the  Pentateuch  has  drawn  ;  still  more  so  in  its  legal 
chapters,  which  cannot  fail  to  incorporate  the  leading 
enactments,  or  to  reproduce  the  institutions,  whereby 
the  greatest  of  the  Prophets  literally  created  Israel. 

Moses  Original  Author, — To  what  extent  these 
Mosaic  foundations  are  traceable  in  a  work  so  frequently 
edited  is  another  question.  But  affirming  them  to  be 
present,  we  see  that  an  original  authorship — far  beyond 
the  "  Book  of  the  Covenant " — need  not  be  incompatible 
with  recensions  that  belong  to  different  periods.  "The 
early  Hebrew  historians  did  not  affix  their  names  to 
their  works;  they  had,  indeed,  no  idea  of  authorship." 
Codes  of  law  are,  by  necessity,  subject  to  continual 
changes  and  additions ;  but  they  keep  certain  names  as 
titles,  e.g.,  Theodosius  or  Napoleon,  however  much 
revised.  From  all  which  considerations  it  is  apparent 
that  Moses  might  be  held  to  have  originated  the 
Pentateuch,  though  not  responsible  for  its  every  line, 
and  be  termed  its  author,  since  it  embodied  the  work 
of  writers  who  obeyed  his  inspiration. 

One  further  remark  by  way  of  reconciliation  between 
the  old  views  and  the  modern  critics.  They  can  scarcely 
do  otherwise  than  hold  that  from  the  beginning,  under 
Moses  in  the  wilderness,  a  special  pre-eminence  attached 
to  the  ark  and  the  sanctuary  where  Jahweh  abode.  If 
Exodus  xxiii.  19  was  part  of  the  primitive  "  Book  of 
the    Covenant,"   that    dignity   found   express    mention 

»V.  Hugel,  Docs.  Hexat.,  28. 


ri 


56  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

from  the  first.  At  Sinai  Israel  began  to  exist  as  a 
Chosen  People  with  one  Tabernacle  and  a  Levitic  priest- 
hood. "  It  is  highly  probable,"  says  Prof.  Driver, 
"  that  there  existed  the  tradition — perhaps  even  in  a 
written  form — of  a  final  address  delivered  by  Moses  in 
the  plains  of  Moab,  to  which  some  of  the  laws  peculiar 
to  Dt.  were  attached,  as  those  common  to  it  and  J.  E. 
are  attached  to  the  legislation  at  Horeb."  ^  Thus,  con- 
cludes another,  the  only  long  documents  of  which  it  is 
said,  in  so  many  words,  that  they  were  written  by 
Moses  (the  Book  of  Covenant,  Exod.  xx.  22  -  xxiii. 
33  ;  Deut.  i.  6  ;  xxxi.  9)  would  have  come  from  his  hand, 
while  D.  itself  would  turn  out  to  be  a  recapitulation 
and  development  of  these  laws,  discourses  and  writings.^ 

Two  statements  of  a  living  scholar  would  seem  to 
give  us  the  main  situation.  On  the  one  hand  we  read, 
"  The  literary  foundation  upon  which  the  history  and 
religion  of  Israel  rested  is,  in  its  present  form,  a  compo- 
site work".  And  on  the  other,  "  The  archaeological 
facts  support  the  traditional  rather  than  the  so-called 
'  critical '  view  of  the  age  and  authority  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  tend  to  show  that  we  have  in  it  not  only  a 
historical  monument  whose  statements  can  be  trusted, 
but  also  what  is  substantially  a  work  of  the  great  Hebrew 
legislator  himself"." 

Again,  we  have  learnt  that  the  age  of  the  Exodus 
was,  all  over  Western  Asia,  "an  age  of  literature  and 
books,  of  readers  and  writers,  and  that  the  cities  of 
Palestine" — Lachish,  Kirjath-Sepher,  being  witnesses — 
"  were  stored  with  the  contemporaneous  records  of  past 
events,  inscribed  on  imperishable  clay".  That  'Lthe^ 
kinsfolk  and  neighbours  of  the  Israelites  were  already;^ 
acquainted  with  alphabetic  writing";  and  that  "the 
wanderers  in  the  Desert  and  the  tribes  of  Edom  were 
in  contact  with  the  cultured  scribes  and  traders  of 
Ma'in,"  who  perhaps  were  among  the  first  to  employ 

1  Introdiict.,  85.  *  V.  Hiigel,  Docs.  Hexat..  21. 

^Sayce,  Higher  Crit.  and  Mon.,  31 ;  Patriarch.  Palest.,  iv. 


ANCIENT  SOURCES  PROBABLE  S7 

\i}  That  the_correspondence  stored  up  at  Tel  el-_ 
Aman]a(i40C>JL22o2  proves  a  constant  intercourse 
^tween  Egypt  and~Canaan,  the  widest  diffusion  of 
Babylonian  literature,  and  the  immemorial  sanctity  of 
Jerusalem.  That  indications  up  and  down  the  Five 
Rooks,  in  Deuteronomy  as  well  as  in  Genesis,  point  to 
a  very  high  origin  of  their  sources  and  may  be  derived 
from  the  cuneiform  "  libraries  of  Canaan  ".  That  Baby- 
lonian systems  of  cosmology  and  rehgious  traditions 
were  known  to  the  Canaanites  long  before  Israel  entered 
their  land  ;  whence  we  need  not  wait  for  the  materials 
of  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  until  the  Exile  has  given 
them,  or  deny  an  acquaintance  with  such  ideas  to  Moses 
and  his  contemporaries.  That  the  "  lawgiver  "  and  the 
"scribe,"  mentioned  in  that  ancient  song,  the  Song 
of  Deborah,  warrant  us  in  admitting  a  written  Torah 
centuries  before  the  kingdom  or  Temple  of  Solomon 
existed.  That,  therefore,  in  our  Pentateuch  are  em- 
bodied notices  coeval  with  many  of  the  events  which 
they] describe,  and  even  anterior  to  Moses.  And  that 
in  a  world  where  writing  met  him  on  every  side,  for 
the  chieftain  who  led  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  and  who 
made  them  a  people,  not  to  have  written  his  enact- 
ments, or  left  an  account  of  his  mighty  deeds,  is  beyond 
measure  improbable.  We  can  fully,  therefore,  accept 
Exod.  xviii.  i6,  which  brings  before  us  the  legislator 
Moses  whose  judgments  are  termed  the  Toroth,  that  is 
to  say,  the  decisions  of  God. 

These  vTews,  we  are-  told,  do  much  more  than  satisfy 
the  requirements  of  Exod.  xvii.  14  ;  xxiv.  4  ;  xxxiv.  27  ; 
Num.  xxxiii.  i ,  2.  They  go  far  in  explanation  of  the  two 
passages  (Dt.  xxxi.  9  ;  ib.  24-26)  which  many  apologists 
bring  forward  to  prove  that  Moses  wrote  the  entire  Pen- 
tateuch. Accurately  judged,  the  expressions  "  Moses 
wrote  this  law,"  "  Take  this  book  of  the  law  and  put  it 
by  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  Covenant,"  demonstrate 

'  Sayce,  Higher  Criticism  and  Monuments,  59. 


58  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

only  what  they  say ;  the  whole  legislation  is  not  covered 
by  them,  much  less  the  Five  volumes  of  a  history  such 
as  we  have  it.  But  except  in  these  four  passages  the 
Pentateuch  does  not  allude  to  any  authorship  which 
connects  it  with  Moses.  It  is  composed  in  the  third 
person,  not  the  first ;  it  speaks  of  its  hero  in  admiring 
terms  which  no  prophet  would  have  applied  to  himself ; 
as  a  whole  it  is  anonymous.  The  references  in  Kings 
and  Chron.  by  which  men  like  Hengstenberg  attempted 
to  show  that  Israel  and  Judah  always  knew  the  Penta- 
teuch, though  often  transgressing  its  ordinances,  are  not 
in  themselves  conclusive  ;  they  would  be  intelligible  on 
the  literary  analysis  given  by  moderns,  and  must  be 
reconciled  with  what  we  have  quoted  regarding  the  his- 
tory of  worship  and  ritual.^  It  may  be  replied  with 
Hoberg,  "  The  Pentateuch  is  due  to  a  religious  develop- 
ment from  Moses  to  the  Exile,  on  the  basis  of  regulations 
written  by  Moses  and  forming-  the  larger  portion  of  the 
Old  Testament  Codes  ".^     Thus  the  moderns. 

That  Elijah,  Amos,  Hosea,  who  denounced  the  idola- 
tries of  Israel,  should  never  have  thundered  against 
multiplying  altars  and  offering  sacrifice  even  to  God 
on  the  high  places,  were  such  a  book  as  Deuteronomy, 
the  testament  of  Moses,  known  to  them,  which  strongly 
forbade  these  things,  is  hardly  conceivable.^  We  resolve 
a  complicated  problem  only  when  all  its  terms  are  ac- 
counted for.  And  since  archaeology  permits  us  to  hold 
that  Moses  did  leave  memorials,  while  literarj/  tests  and 
the  actual  story  of  Hebrew  institutions  compel  us  to 
acknowledge  different  strains  in  language,  customs, 
ritual,  and  theology,  present  in  the  Hexateuch,  we 
shall  discharge  these  claims,  it  has  been  insisted,  by 
looking  on  it  as  a  compilation  from  which  the  lawgiver 

1 1  K.  ii.  3  ;  2  K.  xviii.  6,  12  ;  xiv.  6  ;  xxi.  7  ;  xxii.  8 ;  xxiii.  25  ;  2  Chr, 
XXV.  4  ;  xxxiii.  <S,  18;  xxxiv.  14;  xxxv.  6,  12,  etc. 

■^  Hoberg,  Gen.,  xxvii. 

3  For  Elijah,  vide  i  K.  xviii.  30;  xix.  10.     Vide  also,  Hosea  iii.  4 
iv.  13  ;  X.  8  ;  Amos  iv.  4 ;  v.  5,  2t,  22. 


DIFFICULTIES  CONSIDERED  $9 

ou:J:ht  not  to  be  separated,  but  which  has  passed  through 
a  number  of  hands.     So  runs  the  argument. 

Objections  to  the  Modern  Theories. — But  do  not 

the  views  thus  outhned  contravene  the  "teaching  and 
behef  of  the  Jewish  Church  in  the  time  of  our  Lord"? 
And  has  not  that  teaching  been  accepted  by  Christ  and 
His  Apostles,  and  inherited  by  the  Church?  No  true 
Christian  would  run  counter,  if  he  knew  it,  to  any 
"  immemorial  doctrine "  of  the  faith  which  his  fathers 
had  taught  him.  Is  the  strict  Mosaic  authorship  in  this 
category  ?  Reference  is  made  to  our  Lord's  expressions, 
Mark  xii.  26;  Luke  xx.  ^y  ;  John  v.  46,  47.  It  has 
been  pointed  out,  in  answer  to  the  particular  citations, 
that  we  cannot  tell  by  what  precise  terms  our  Lord, 
who  spoke  in  Aramaic,  appealed  to  Moses  and  the  Law. 
Another  suggestion  is  that  in  using  the  language  of 
tradition  Christ  and  His  Apostles  no  more  determined 
its  historical  value  than  in  using  other  popular  forms  of 
speech.  It  is  an  axiom,  indeed,  that  whatever  the 
Divine  Teacher  proposed  for  our  learning  cannot  be 
set  aside.  But  the  inquiry  now  is  whether  He  intended 
by  His  words  to  ratify  the  Hebrew  tradition,  about 
which  there  was  no  controversy.  Did  the  matter  come 
before  Him  as  a  judge,  and  did  He  pass  judgment? 
That  no  direct  question  was  raised  is  undeniable.  If 
our  Saviour  decided  anything,  therefore,  it  must  have 
been  indirectly,  or  by  implication. 

Krypsis  or  Kenosis  ? — On  the  whole  subject  a  pre- 
liminary debate  has  been  instituted,  by  way  of  helping 
us  to  form  an  opinion.  Three  schools  appear  to  divide 
theologians  :  ( i )  that  our  Lord  possessing  perfect  Divine 
knowledge  even  as  man,  could  not  have  spoken  as  He 
did  if  it  were  not  the  literal  truth ;  (2)  that  He  had_ 
assuredly  such  knoMedge,  but  was  not  bound  to  share 
it  with  His  disciples  in  these  human  details,  and_did^ 
in  fact,  reserve  it  in  His  pwjn  breast— the  doctrine  of 
Kry^is ;'  (3)  that  His  knowledge  as  man,  by  a  gracious 
condescendence,  was  limited  in  all  such  questions  of 


6o  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

sources  and  authorship — the  doctrine  of  Kenosis.  Elder 
theologians  favoured  the  first  view;  recent  non-Catholic_ 
divines  have  generally  adopted  the  second  or  third.  To 
the  doctrine  of  Kenosis  applied  in  the  last-named  man- 
ner Catholic  sentiment  is  vehemently  opposed.  But  it 
would  not,  apparently,  demur  to  the  notion  of  reserve 
or  Krypsis,  which  is  also  a  form  of  condescension,  but 
which  leaves  in  its  fulness  the  Divine  and  human  know- 
ledge of  our  Lord,  whether  before  the  Resurrection  or 
after  it,  as  St.  Luke  represents  Him  on  the  way  to 
Emmaus  (Luke  xxiv.  27).^ 

"  The  law  was  given  through  Moses ;  grace  and  truth 
came  through  Jesus  Christ"  (John  i.  18).  In  this  dog- 
matic formula  the  relation  of  New  Testament  as  a 
history  and  a  Dispensation  to  the  Jewish  Covenant  is 
affirmed  so  clearly,  that  to  impugn  the  existence  of  such 
a  law  derived  from  the  lawgiver  would  be  to  overthrow 
the  foundation  on  which  Christianity  has  been  set  up. 
An  "  immemorial  doctrine,"  these  and  the  like  words  do 
shadow  forth,  but  it  is  one  which  concerns  rather  the 
facts  in  themselves  than  the  literary  analysis  of  their 
record.  No  investigations  bearing  on  the  latter  point 
were  undertaken  by  the  Apostles ;  and  we  could  scarcely 
imagine  their  Divine  Master  turning  aside  from  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  to  argue  such  things  with  Scribes 
and  Pharisees."^  Problems  of  authorship  were  strange 
to  the  Hebrew  temperament.  Every  book  was  sub- 
mitted to  interlineations  and  had  marginal  jottings 
which  tended  to  coalesce  with  older  texts.  In  the 
LXX.  we  remark  how  profuse  are  the  variations ;  and 
the  free  quotations  from  it  that  we  find  in  New  Tes- 
tament prove  once  more  an  absence  of  critical  anxi- 
eties to  us  incomprehensible,  though  not  surprising  if 
we  have  studied  Eastern  methods  of  literature.  What 
is  the  conclusion  suggested  by  these  premisses?     Is  it 

'  Hastings,  D.  B.,  "  Kenosis  " ;  GIgot,  Spec.  Introd.,  49-51 ;  for  argu- 
ment from  our  Lord's  authority,  Abp.  Smith,  Pentatetich,  25-42. 
^Hummelauer,  Excget,  Inspirat.,  86-go. 


THE  GREAT  LAIV-GIVER  6l 

not  that  our  special  questions,  being  foreign  to  the 
Apostles,  remain  exactly  where  they  would  be  if  the 
New  Testament,  when  it  speaks  of  writings  by  Moses, 
used  the  current  language  but  passed  no  judgment  on  it? 
Recent  Decisions. — On  June  27,  1906,  the  Biblical 
Commjssion  sitting  at  Rpme  declared :  (i)  that  no  criti- 
cal arguments  avail  to  call  in  question  the  "  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,"  and  that  Moses  was  its 
author ;  (2)  that  such  "  authenticity "  does  not  imply 
that  Moses  wrote  everything  in  these  books,  "  omnia 
et  singula,"  or  dictated  them  all  to  amanuenses,  though 
he  was  the  principal  inspired  author ;  (3)  that  he  may 
have  employed  for  his  purpose  written  documents  and 
oral  traditions  ;  (4)  and  that,  while  ascribing  the  Penta- 
teuch as  a  whole  to  Moses,  we  may  allow  "  additamenta 
apposita,  vel  glossas  et  explicationes  textui  interjectas," 
z>.,  additions,  notes,  and  other  marks  of  recension,  in 
the  course  of  time,  without  prejudice  to  the  truth. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  EARLIER  PROPHETS. 

First  Law  of  Israel. — Moses,  then,  did  set  up  in 
essentials  a  Theocracy  at  Horeb.  and  he  left  a  Code  of 
Laws,  not  by  any  means  all  recent,  which  included  the 
Ten  Words  graven  on  stones  and  preserved  in  the 
Ark.  We  may  read  these  ordinances  now  in  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant  (Exod.  xx.  22  -  xxiii.  t,;^),  but  it  lies  em- 
bedded within  a  prophetic  and  priestly  narrative — J.  E. 
passing  on  to  P.  C. — which  further  completes  or  revises 
the  institutions  by  divine  authority.  Destructive  critics 
observe  that  these  chapters  allow  many  altars,  legislate 
for  a  settled  people,  and  suppose  an  agricultural  state. 
To  which  it  may  be  answered  thus  :  The  establishment 
of  a  tabernacle  began  the  movement  which  in  course  of 
time  would  lead  to  one  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem.  And 
the  Israelites  at  Kadesh  Barnea  were  not  pure  nomads, 
but  tilled  their  lands  as  the  Bedawin  do  now.^  But,  in 
general,  it  is  true  that  the  period  from  Judges  to  Samuel 
and  far  into  the  age  of  Kings  presents  those  features 
which  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  also  exhibits  in  its  rites 
and  customs.  It  is  only  afterwards  that  we  hear  the 
Prophets  denouncing  the  high  places  and  that  Josiah 
will  not  tolerate  them.  We  may  describe  this  Covenant, 
therefore,  as  the  First  Law  of  Israel.     References  to 

^  On  the  fertile  oasis  of  Kadesh  B.,  vide  Sayce,  Higher  Crit.  and 
Mon.,  180.  Also  Lagrange,  Led.,  175.  On  Moses  as  merely  local 
hero,  who  delivers  the  "Rachel  Tribes"  and  leads  them  to  Kadesh 
Barnea,  see  E.  Bi.,  sub  voce,  and  also  "  Docs.  Hex."  and  "  Exod.," 
ibidem. 

62 


FROM  JUDGES  TO  KINGS  6$ 

Moses  in  Old  Testament  outside  Hexateuch  are  few  but 
si^iificant.  As  a  prophet  by  whom  the  Lord  brought 
Israel  up  out  of  Egypt  and  preserved  him  (Hosea  xii. 
13,  a  contested  passage),  as  with  Aaron  and  Miriam  a 
deliverer  of  the  people  (Micah  vi.  4,  and  compare  I  Sam. 
xii.  6,  8),  as  shepherd  of  the  flock  (Isa.  Ixiii.  12),  as 
powerful  by  his  intercession  with  God  (Ps.  cvi.  23,  Jer. 
XV.  l).  But  the  noblest  of  acknowledgments  is  found 
in  this,  that  all  who  afterwards  drew  up  laws  for  God's 
chosen  race,  except  Ezekiel,  sheltered  them  under  the 
Mosaic  patronage.^ 

As  in  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings. — No  chapters  in  the 
Old  Testament  are  more  picturesque,  none  more  copious 
in  striking  traits  and  narratives  of  the  utmost  value  for 
historians  who  deal  with  primitive  usages  and  records, 
than  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings.  They  bear  the  impress 
of  truth  and  reality,  which  in  the  latter  volume  (Kings) 
is  confirmed  by  .'\ssyrian  monuments.  But  they  are 
anonymous.  We  know  nothing  whatever  of  the  men 
that  wrote  them.  All  have  been  compiled  from  other 
sources,  the  Book  of  Jashar  (2  Sam.  i.  18),  the  Wars  of 
the  Lord  (i  Sam.  xviii,  17  ;  xxv.  28),  concerning  which 
we  are  greatly  in  the  dark ;  the  Book  of  the  acts  of 
Solomon  (i  Kings  xi.  41),  the  Book  of  the  Chronicles  of 
the  Kings  of  Israel  (seventeen  times),  and  ditto  of  the 
Kings  of  Judah  (fifteen  times).  That  these  last  three 
were  official  records  is  the  obvious  implication.  The 
bnefjtatisticalnotic^es  in--Ki"gs  are  usually  termed  the 
Epitome^  For  the^narratives  we  look  to  the  prophets  and 
their  schools  in  the  respective  kingdoms. 

From  Judges  onwards  a  development  is  traceable 
on  the  national  side  which,  beginning  with  scattered 
heroic  adventures  and  popular  history,  becomes  anna- 
listic,  archivial,  reflective.  Then  the  struggle  between 
a  civilised  but  corrupt  society  and  the  prophets  who 
still  breathe  a  desert  air — between  a  Church  emanci- 

1  Hastings,  D.  B.,  Extra  Vol.,  "  Relig.  of  Israel,"  625-34. 


64  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

pating  itself  from  royal  thraldom  and  the  classes  which 
lusted  after  heathen  rites  and  indulgences — takes  on 
by  degrees  a  more  definite  form.  Samuel,  Elijah,  and 
Isaiah  display  the  same  principles  and  unite  the  stages 
of  this  long  interval.  For  Samuel  condemns  by  anti- 
cipation the  abuses  of  monarchy ;  Elijah  confronts  Ahab 
in  the  apostate  kingdom  of  the  Ten  Tribes ;  Isaiah 
transfigures  the  House  of  David  to  a  religious  hope 
and  in  the  future  King  welcomes  Immanuel.  Be  the 
editor's  hand  as  visible  as  it  is  undoubted  in  the  whole 
story,  we  yet  discern  this  prophetic  idea,  not  as  some- 
thing read  into  it,  but  as  its  kernel  and  significance, 
from  the  days  when  Judges  rose  up  to  defend  their 
tribes  until  Samaria  fell,  carrying  with  it  the  ruin  of 
the  old  sanctuaries,  while  Jerusalem  itself,  in  losing  its. 
first  Temple,  opened  the  period  of  a  legal,  to  be  fol- 
lowed by  a  spiritual  and  Christian  Israel.  Such  a 
history  cannot  be  thought  other  than  sacred,  however 
on  the  surface  it  may  appear  to  be  secular ;  the  issue 
declares  it  religious  and  of  world-wide  import.  Under 
this  light  we  perceive  how  and  why  it  must  be  inspired. 
It  sets  out  from  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  to  arrive  at 
Deuteronomy,  which  is  indeed  the  Second  Law.^ 

Elohist  and  Jahwist.^ — Oral  tradition  in  the  shape  of 
poems  and  tales,  often  connected  with  famous  old  shrines, 
— Bethel,  Shechem,  Gilgal,  Hebron — then  temple  re- 
cords and  palace  chronicles, — furnish  the  matter  to  be 
wrought  up  into  narratives  of  which  J.  was  the  Judasan 
instance  and  E.  the  Israelite  (or  Ephraimite  I.).  E.  is 
thought  to  be  the  later  of  the  two.  As  customary  in 
primitive  writings  both  begin  with  a  sketch  of  the 
world's  creation,  but  we  shall  reserve  comment  upon  it 
till  our  concluding  part.  When  J.  tells  the  story  of  the 
Patriarchs  in  Genesis  it  is  not  from  antiquarian  interest, 
such  as  we  notice  in  the  Priestly  Writer ;  if  Shechem 
has  associations  with  Abraham,  and  Jacob  anoints  the 

1  E.  Bi.,  "  Hist.  Lit.,"  sees.  4,  5  ;  Hastings,  D.  B.,  Extra  Vol.,  64^-50. 


SCOPE  OF  THE  EDITORS  65 

mazzcbah  of  Bethel,  these  incidents  are  related  because 
worship  was  long  rendered  at  those  sanctuaries.  Parallels 
may  be  suggested  from  our  Catholic  shrines, — Assisi, 
for  instance,  where  the  Saint's  life  is  bound  up  with  his 
dwelling  and  pilgrims  visit  the  holy  spots,  guidc-book 
in  hand.  No  one  can  read  Genesis  without  feeling 
how  that  local  religion  chooses  and  colours  the  episodes 
in  which  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob  and  Joseph  severally 
figure.  The  shrines  bear  witness  to  the  heroes ;  they 
in  turn  glorify  the  sacred  memorials,  the  oak  of  Mamrc, 
the  wells  of  Rehoboth  and  Beersheba,  the  pillar  of 
Bethel,  the  heap  of  stones  which  Laban  called  Jegar 
sahadutJui  but  Jacob  called  it  Galeed,  the  altar  at 
Shechem  named  "  El  the  Mighty  One  of  Israel "} 
These  reminiscences  of  the  Fathers  were  afterwards  to 
be  left  in  the  shade ;  sacrifice  and  incense  would  no 
more  be  offered  at  such  primaeval  centres ;  but  when 
J.  E.  began  that  revolution  was  far  distant  The  same 
spirit  is  manifest  in  Judges,  where  local  shrines  play  no 
unimportant  part  We  follow  it  all  through  Samuel ; 
and  it  survives  the  setting  up  of  the  Temple  at  Jeru- 
salem which  was  to  conquer  it  in  a  later  time." 

Editors  of  Genesis  =  Kings. — We  do  not  know 
when  J.  and  E.  were  combined  into  one  narrative ;  the 
lowest  alleged  date  would  be  650 ;  but  a  much  higher 
-i&-^quite  conceivable.  However,  it  i.s  of  more  conse- 
quence to  observe  that  the  method  of  Deuteronomy  has 
been  applied  (necessarily  backwards)  to  Kings  and  the 
previous  histories  in  our  present  recension.  Enunciated 
in  Solomon's  prayer  on  dedicating  the  Temple  (i  Kings 
viii.)  its  principles  are  illustrated  in  his  rise  and  fall ;  every 
Hebrew  monarch  is  judged  according  to  them  ;  and  the 
story  of  Judah  and  Israel  becomes  a  Theodicaea  which 
justifies  the  ways  of  God  to  men.  The  like  moral  is 
prefixed  to  Judges  and  lends  it  a  framework  ;  in  the 

iQen.  xviii.  i;  xxiii.  17;  xxi.  31;  xxvi.  22-33;  xxviii.   n-22  ;   xxxi, 
47;  xxxiii.2o;  Josh.  xxiv.  32;  i  Sam.  v.  18;  vii.  12;  xi.  15. 
2  Gunkel,  Die  Genesis  iibersetzt,  for  dissection  of  narraiives. 


66  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

rejection  of  Saul  and  the  glorious  reign  of  David  it  had 
been  already  set  forth  by  the  prophets,  so  that  the 
Deuteronomist  who  comes  later,  according  to  modern 
theories,  found  but  little  to  subjoin.  Threads  connecting 
more  than  one  redaction  in  this  "  pragmatic  "  sense  with 
our  Book  of  Joshua  have  been  brought  to  light ;  while 
the  influence  of  P.  C.  or  the  source  from  which  it  came 
on  our  actual  history  (Judges-Kings)  must  never  be 
forgotten.  The  chronology  in  particular  is  late  and 
systematic,  not  derived  in  its  earlier  stages  from  docu- 
ments but  reached  by  calculation. 

Here  ends  the  first  volume  of  the  Hebrew  Bible, 
inscribed  as  the  Law  and  the  Earlier  Prophets.  There 
never  existed  a  separate  Hexateuch.  To  round  off  our 
survey  we  just  mention  that  the  "Chronicle  of  Jerusalem  " 
(our  Chr.,  Ezra,  Nehem.)  which  in  Hebrew  closes  the 
Hagiographa  or  Ketubim,  was  composed  by  a  Temple- 
scribe  about  430  B.C.  It  has  been  happily  termed  an 
abridgement  of  the  "  Midrash  on  the  Books  of  Kings  "} 
The  writer,  who  follows  P,  C.  in  his  method,  has  occasion- 
ally made  use  of  ancient  sources  peculiar  to  himself  when 
dealing  with  genealogies  and  topography.  We  shall  re- 
turn to  his  compilation  by-and-by. 

Book  of  Joshua. — Joshua  opens  the  Former  Prophets. 
It  is  a  history  and  a  Doomsday  Book,  highly  idealised, 
which  D^."  has  brought  into  his  general  plan  by  adding 
a  moral  at  the  beginning  and  the  end  (i.,  xxiii,).  Large 
sections  (xiii.-xxiv.)  exhibit  the  style  of  P.  C. ;  we  do  not 
know  who  was  the  final  editor.  The  earlier  narrative 
(i.-xii.)is  composite,  perhaps  the  work  of  him  who  revised 
J.  E.,  but  who  had  some  other  materials  to  go  upon. 
From  the  nature  of  the  case  Joshua  himself  bears  a 
resemblance  to  Moses,  which  yet  does  not  allow  us  to 
grant  the  contention  of  extreme  critics,  as  if  he  were 
merely  a  reflection  or  "  double  "  of  the  lawgiver.     He  is 

^  2  Chr.  xxiv.  27. 

''  D-  is  the  name  given  to  a  second  supposed  editor  belonging  to  the 
school  of  Deuteronomy. 


JOSHUA  AND  JUDGES  67 

subject,  not  author,  of  the  book  called  by  his  name.  The 
region,  rather  than  the  tribe,  of  Mphraim  occupies  our 
chief  interest.  Benjamin  (which  means  the  right  hand, 
the  "  South,"  as  in  Gaelic  "  Deisi  "),  Judah,  and  Caleb, 
represent  another  stream  of  invaders,  as  hinted  in  the 
"Judaic  fragment".  But  Joshua  stands  in  person  for 
the  conquests  of  the  House  of  Joseph.  He  sets  up  the 
tent  of  meeting  at  Shiloh  and  makes  a  covenant  with 
the  people  at  Shechem ;  while  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron, 
is  buried  in  Mount  Ephraim.  These  are  Northern  tra- 
ditions of  a  type  unmistakable.  Influences  not  foreign 
to  them  dominate  also  the  Book  of  Judges.  There  is 
no  scheme  of  dates,  and  the  materials  are  rather  thrown 
together  than  wrought  into  a  consistent  whole.'  Since 
it  contains  nothing  of  a  new  legislation,  Joshua  falls 
outside  the  Torah,  and  was  easily  joined  on  to  the 
historical  division  which  extends  from  the  death  of 
Moses  to  the  ruin  of  the  Temple.  Its  rank  in  the 
Canon  was  thus  determined.  But,  of  course,  it  existed 
in  some  less  perfect  state  before  the  second  Canon 
obtained  recognition,  as  is  shown  by  comparing  the 
text  of  LXX.  with  Massorah.  As  regards  the  author, 
Catholic  tradition  seems  to  leave  us  entirely  to  our- 
selves. For  the  ascription  to  Joshua,  though  wide- 
^read,  is  not  binding.'-' 

Book  of  Judges. — Judges  or  "  Champions  "  {Shophe- 
tini,  in  Punic,  Sufetes)  begins  in  close  connection  with 
Joshua's  "Judaic  fragment,"  which  it  repeats  in  its  first 
chapter ;  but,  except  in  the  story  of  Samson,  it  deals  in 
Northern  episodes  and  looks  on  to  Samuel  as  its  pro- 
phetic term.  Chapters  xvii.-xviii.  preserve  a  legend  of 
the  sanctuary  of  Dan  ;  chapters  xix.-xxii.  are  a  Midrash, 
or  moralising  tale,  associated  with  Gibeah,  Bethlehem, 
Shiloh,  and  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  ;  both  narratives  stand 
apart  from,  the  rest  of  the  book.  It  has  a  double  intro- 
duction and  these  two  appendices.     The  Hebrew  text 

'Driver,  Inirod.,  96-109. 

^Gigot.,  Sprc.  Introd.,  213-24;  Hastings,  D.  U.,  ii.  784. 

5* 


68  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

is  defective  ;  the  Greek  has  come  down  in  two  very 
dissimilar  forms  represented  by  the  Alexandrian  codex 
(A)  and  the  Vatican  (B)  each  with  subsidiary  groups 
and  versions.  The  Alexandrian  (Lagarde)  is  considered 
the  more  primitive,  and  better  exhibits  the  LXX.  St. 
Jerome,  who  follows  the  current  Hebrew  of  his  day, 
uses  a  certain  freedom  in  translating,  and  his  Vulgate 
therefore  leaves  the  text  to  be  recovered  from  other 
sources.  No  consensus  of  divines  affirming  the  au- 
thorship has  ever  been  made  out.  And  none  of  our 
modern  commentators  would  uphold  the  original  unity 
of  its  texture.^ 

In  Judges  there  is  a  "general  idea,"  says  Calmet, 
which  begins  ii.  6  and  is  brought  down  to  xvi.  31.  Men 
have  called  it  recently  the  "  pragmatic  "  formula,  showing 
how  Israel  stands  to  Jahweh  during  these  lawless  times 
— "sin,  chastisement,  repentance,  deliverance".  But 
into  that  framework  of  edification  a  number  of  hero-tales 
have  been  set,  the  origin  of  which,  manifestly  local 
memories,  cannot  but  lead  us  to  imagine  several  redac- 
tions before  the  Deuteronomist  took  them  in  hand. 
Again,  two  groups  of  stories  have  been  recognised,  of 
which  one  (J.)  belongs  to  popular  folk  tradition  and  the 
"Wars  of  Jahweh,"  but  the  second  (E.)  is  prophetic  in 
tone,  carrying  the  development  of  Israel's  religion  from 
Joshua  to  Samuel  (i  Sam.  i.-xii.).  Jephthah,  and  much 
more  visibly  Gideon,  connect  this  twofold  series,  which 
centres  round  holy  places,  Gilgal,  Shechem,  etc.  The 
parallel  narratives,  involving  a  degree  of  adjustment, 
have  been  traced  in  Ehud,  Deborah  and  Barak,  Abime- 
lech  probably,  and  Samson,  as  well  as  in  the  Gideon  and 
Jephthah  stories.  We  might  ascribe  the  perfect  fusion 
to  D^.  But  a  further  manipulation  was  required  to  give 
the  book  its  place  and  meaning  in  the  whole  sacred 
history.  Since  Dl  is  later  than  621  B.C.,  the  editor  who 
followed  him  must  be  sought  (as  likewise  would  appear 

^  Lagrange,  L.  des  jfuges,  xvi.-xx. 


INSPIRED  FOLK-TALES  69 

from  his  particular  features),  after  the  Exile,  perhaps  in 
the  age  of  Ezra.^ 

Deductions  from  its  Critical  History. — From  these 
propositions,  now  widely  accepted  by  orthodox  writers, 
several  important  corollaries  may  be  drawn.  A  docu- 
ment, though  consisting  of  divergent  materials^  put 
together  by  more  than  one  compiler,  and  as  a  volume 
hundreds  of  years  more  recent  than  its  sources,  which 
pass  into  it  with  all  their  naivete  of  statement  and  bold 
|X)etical  freedom,  will  yet  be  sacred  and  inspired  if  we 
find  it  in  the  Canon.  Not  of  course  that  recognition 
gave~lt  qualities  which  in  itself  it  did  not  possess. 
Rut  such  qualities,  we  learn,  are  not  incompatible  with 
a  kind  of  narrative  in  the  highest  degree  popular,  z>,, 
coloured  by  all  the  vivacity  of  oral  deliverance,  abound- 
ing in  folk-lore,  intent  rather  on  a  picturesque  setting  of 
events  and  their  heroes  than  on  judging  them  from  a 
religious  or  ethical  point  of  view.  Doubtless,  the  moral 
judgment  is  supplied  by  the  Deuteronomist  and  subse- 
quent editors,  attached  to  the  schools  of  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel,  But  the  essential  character  of  the  cycle  remains 
what  it  was,  deeply  and  clearly  human,  national,  patriotic. 
Inspiration  adds  a  larger  association  ;  it  takes  nothing 
awu}-  from  these  attributes  of  the  untutored  songs  and 
stories  with  which  it  deals."'^ 

Of  the  chronology  it  may  suffice  to  observe  that  one 
system  appears  throughout  Judges-Kings.  The  thou- 
sand years  reckoned  from  Exodus  to  the  founding  of 
the  Second  Temple  are  divided  into  equal  parts — 500  to 
Solomon's  dedication,  500  to  the  building  under  Darius. 
A  generation  is  counted  as  forty  years ;  twelve  are  com- 
prised in  Judges,  and  as  the  story  proceeds  by  cycles  we 
cannot  look  upon  the  figures  as  more  than  approximate. 
The  instance  of  Hecataeus  of  Miletus,  who  employs  the 

'  Lagrange,  yuges,  xxxvi. ;  Moore,  Book  of  Judires  ;  and  E.  Bi., 
siih  voce. 

■^  Meignan,  De  Moise  <i  David,  401;  Gigot,  Geii.  Introd.,  537; 
Schanz,  Apol.,  ii.  434,  Eng.    ir. 


70  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

same  method  (forty  years  =  generation),  will  explain  and 
justify  it.  One  monument,  Deborah's  Song,  is  con- 
temporary, though  a  little  revised.  In  general,  "  the 
traditions  were  fixed  in  writing  before  the  momentous 
changes  which  the  kingdom  wrought  had  had  time  to 
make  such  a  state  of  things  as  is  represented  in  Judges 
unintelligible  or  unsympathetic  "} 

Book  of  Ruth. — We  can  hardly  question  the  Hebrew 
order  which  unites  Judges  with  Samuel,  despite  the  in- 
terpolation of  Ruth  at  this  juncture  in  the  LXX.,  Vul- 
gate, and  English  catalogues.  Ruth  is  second  of  the  Five 
Alegilloth,  or  Festal  Rolls,  which  being  placed  among 
the  Ketubim  are  in  the  third  Canon,  neither  prophetic 
nor  historic  according  to  the  Jews,  but  in  some  way 
ethical.  Its  subject,  however,  and  the  genealogy  of 
David  which  concludes  it,  were  probably  reasons  which 
determined  its  position  in  the  LXX.  Nothing  is  known 
of  its  author  ;  and  while  the  date  assigned  by  some  critics 
would  take  us  lower  than  the  second  Canon,  others 
perceive  in  its  antique  reminiscences  and  freedom  from 
legal  dryness  arguments  for  assig-ning  the  story  itself  to 
a  much  earlier  time, — as  of  the  Second  Isaiah.  Evi- 
dently, these  are  problems  of  history  and  scholarship, 
with  a  very  remote  beating  on  dogmatic  premisses.^ 

Samuel  1=2. — Samuel-Kings  form  one  volume,  as 
indicated  by  the  Vulgate  and  LXX.  The  famous  "  armed 
preface"  {prologus  galeatns)  which  St.  Jerome  sent  out 
with  his  version,  tells  us  why  he  wrote  "  Books  of 
Kings,"  not  "  Kingdoms,"  as  the  Greek  has  it.^  Samuel 
was  not  the  author,  and  can  scarcely  be  termed  the  chief 
subject,  of  the  two  divisions  called  after  him,  which  in 
the  original  arc  unbroken.  Historically,  we  may  con- 
sider 1-2  Samuel  as  an  account  of  Samuel  and  Saul 
down  to  the  latter's  rejection,  of  David  and  Saul  in 
conflict,  and  of  David  at  Jerusalem  (i  Sam.,  i.-xiv. ;  xv.- 

^  E.  Bi.,  2641  ;  Lagrange,  ytiges,  xxxviii.-xlv. 

^Vigouroux,  M.  B.,  ii.  75  ;  Driver,  Introd.  Lit.  Old  Test.,  425. 

'  Vide  Jerome's  words  in  prologue  to  Latin  Vulgate. 


SAMUEL  A  COMPILATION  71 

xxxi. ;  2  Sam.  i.-xxiv.).  TliQ XQal  subject  is  "the  crea- 
tion of  a  united  Israel ".  There  are  three  concluding 
summarres," which  proves  that  the  book  had  here  come 
to  a  definite  close.  As  many  as  sixteen  parallel  sec- 
tions to  the  Books  of  Chronicles  have  been  numbered, 
and  official  sources  are  implied  by  the  lists  of  heroes 
and  other  statistics. 

That  Samuel  is  a  compilation  of  the  most  involved 
character  is  hardly  open  to  question.  Ancient  sources 
like  the  Book  of  Jashar  meet  us  in  the  text ;  four  .strata 
have  been  recognised  in  it  on  lines  now  familiar  to  us, 
— a  double  history,  revision  by  school  of  D.  (especially 
2  Sam.  vii.),  final  Midrash.  The  literary  arguments,  as 
well  as  doublets  and  variations  in  the  story,  bear  out 
these  inferences.  A  shorter  recension  of  i  Samuel 
xvii.-xviii.  is  extant  in  Greek,  whether  abridgment,  by 
way  of  harmonising,  or  first  edition  cannot  well  be 
decided.  But  though  the  Vatican  LXX.  omits  over  forty 
verses  in  these  chapters,  tokens  of  diverse  narratives 
remain.  That  the  groundwork  is  pre-exilic,  akin  to 
E.  and  very  ancient,  we  may  take  for  certain.  The 
second  narrative  would  be  similar  in  treatment  to  D. 
of  Pentateuch  and  D^  of  Judges.  Modern  critics  are 
always  ready  to  assign  a  late  date  for  pieces  such  as 
Hannah's  canticle  and  the  "  song  of  the  bow ".  2 
Samuel  ix.-xx.  appears  to  come  from  a  single  hand, 
coeval  with  the  events  described  ;  and  the  history  of 
David  (I  Sam.  xv.-2  Sam.  v.)  is  well  connected. 

Who  the  original  authors  were  we  have  no  means  of 
finding  out.  But  the  other  Books  of  Kings  are  not  by 
them ;  style,  language,  plan,  literary  methods  forbid  it. 
That  the  entire  series  underwent  a  single  last  revision 
is  very  likely.  On  the  whole,  Samuel  affords  a  fine 
instance  of  Hebrew  writing  and  history,  not  without 
elements  taken  from  popular  tradition,  in  parts  tangled, 
but  direct  and  primitive.  The  colour  is  often  very  old  ; 
where  it  describes  David's  life  at  Jerusalem  "  the  style 
is  singularly  bright,  flowing,  and  picturesque  ".     Samuel 


72  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

was  never  used  in  the  regular  service  of  the  Syna- 
gogue ;  hence  the  large  discrepancies  between  Greek 
and  Massorah.^ 

It  should  be  noted  that  if  handling  by  D.  is  admissible, 
yet  no  trace  of  Josiah's  reform  occurs  in  the  narrative. 
This  points  to  a  redaction  before  62 1  B.C.  Expressions 
which  imply  that  Israel  had  broken  off  from  Judah  may 
be  due  to  a  later  hand  than  the  writers  of  the  book  at 
large.  Those  critics  who  will  not  associate  Messianic 
hopes  with  David  find  other  difficulties,  but  more  or  less  a 
priori  and  theoretical ;  to  them  ch.  xxii.  of  2  Sam.  (David's 
psalm  of  thanksgiving)  is  post-exilic,  without  value  as 
history.  It  is  not  repeated  in  Chron.,  whence  Budde  has 
argued  that  it  was  inserted  in  Samuel  afterwards.  This 
kind  of  problem  will  meet  us  again,  and  is  in  part  highly 
dogmatic.  How  to  reconcile  the  David  of  Samuel  with 
his  representation  in  Chron.  and  Psalms  had  been  a  sub- 
ject for  theologians  long  before  it  engaged  the  students 
of  philology.  We  may  say  at  once  that  Catholic  tradi- 
tion never  will  give  up  the  Messianic  aspects  of  David 
and  Solomon,  which  form  a  part  of  Christian  teaching, 
essential  to  our  belief  about  Jesus  Himself.  The  witness 
of  Israel  becomes  at  this  point  not  simply  historical  but 
religious  and  supernatural.  And  it  has  been  well  ob- 
served that  "  the  great  facts  of  history,"  such  as  these, 
"are  beyond  the  reach  of  mere  literary  subtleties  "."^ 

Kings  1-2. — I  and  2  Kings,  distinct  as  we  have  seen 
from  Samuel,  are  later  than  535  B.C.  The  narrative  is 
badly  divided  in  our  Bibles,  which  follow  the  LXX. 
Starting  with  Solomon,  or  "  Israel  under  the  one  true 
sanctuary,"  it  goes  down  to  the  release  of  Jehoiachin 
from  prison  by  Evil  Merodach,  King  of  Babylon,  in  562. 
The  natural  sections  are  "  Solomon  "  (i  K.  i.-xi.),  "  Israel 
and  Judah"  (,i  K.  xii.-2  K.  xvii.),  "Judah"  (2  K.  xviii.- 
XXV.).  Like  the  centre-piece  of  Judges  it  has  been 
compiled  from  ancient  materials ;  the  framework  con- 

'  Driver,  Introd.,  173;  E.  Bi.,  4278-80. 

'^  Lagrange,  Led.,  174 ;  Hastings,  D.  B.,  "  David,"  571-72. 


BOOKS  OF  KINGS  73 

sists  of  dates,  authorities,  reflections  on  the  character  of 
the  various  kings;  and  this  all  now  admit  as  betraying 
the  hand  of  the  Deuteronomist.  The  high  places  are 
unsparingly  condemned  by  him,  though  not  in  the  nar- 
ratives which  he  has  wrought  up  to  a  whole.  We 
have  already  mentioned  the  books  from  which  he 
quotes,  and  his  "  Epitome,"  distinguishing  him  from  the 
prophetic  sources.  The  Temple  archives  were  also  pro- 
babl)'  at  his  disposal.  Between  Kings  and  Chron.  the 
resemblance  of  passages  too  numerous  for  a  detailed 
mention  proves  that  they  both  make  use  of  a  common 
treasure.  If  we  allow  certain  post-exilic  references  to 
be  interpolated  (as  customary  in  Hebrew  literature),  the 
main  redaction  need  not  be  later  than  600.  There  exist 
different  MSS.  of  the  LXX.,  and  the  best  may  exhibit 
as  good  a  texture  as  the  Massoretic,^  from  which  it 
varies  considerably. 

We  ought  not  to  overlook  here  and  elsewhere  the 
humble  but  important  observation  that  in  ancient  works 
of  literature  footnotes,  appendices,  lists  of  errata,  and  the 
like  were  unknown.  Editors,  nay,  authors,  made  cor- 
rections by  inserting  later  clauses,  often  to  the  distortion 
of  the  phrase  or  mingling  of  sentences.  A  curious  illus- 
tration occurs  as  late  as  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  ( i  i, 
14-16).  This  comes  out  plainly  in  Greek  Kings.  While 
we  perceive  "  a  certain  uniformity  "  in  our  historian,  the 
materials  are  not  thoroughly  sifted  and  arranged ;  one 
consequence  of  which  is  that  the  time-scheme  applied  to 
both  kingdoms  by  synchronism  abounds  in  difficulties. 

Scheme  of  Chronology. — The  key  to  it  is  i  Kings  vi., 
which  Wellhausen  thinks  not  original,  but  post-Baby- 
lonian. It  counts  back  from  535  B.C. ;  has  the  round 
numbers  480  and  240 ;  and  trisects  its  period  by  the 
160  years  to  23rd  of  Joash,  as  many  again  to  death  of 
Hezekiah,  and  as  many  more  from  accession  of  Manas- 
seh  to  the  Exile.     These  interesting  lights  show  us  that 

'  Driver,  Introd.,  175-93  ;  "  Kings  "  in  E.  Bi.  and  Hastings,  D.  B. ; 
Gigot,  Spec.  Introd.,  266-89. 


74  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

particular  events  were  fitted  into  the  system  as  best 
they  could  be ;  and  we  are  not  to  demand  what  the 
calculation  never  promised,  literal  exactitude.  A  date 
of  the  first  importance  is  the  captivity  of  Israel,  conse- 
quent on  the  fall  of  Samaria.  By  the  system  it  appears 
fixed  to  737 ;  but  we  know  from  the  precise  lists  of  the 
Assyrian  eponymns  that  Samaria  was  captured  by  Sar- 
gon  in  722.-'  No  commentator  would  affirm  that  such 
a  discrepancy  affects  the  sacred  character  of  the  Bible. 

St.  Jerome,  with  customarj^  freedom,  puts  the  dates 
aside.  "Read  over,"  he  says,  "all  the  books  of  Old 
Testament  and  New  Testament  and  you  will  find  such 
difference  of  years  and  numbers  between  Judah  and 
Israel,  i.e.,  the  kingdoms  confused,  that  to  linger  upon 
these  questions  would  seem  the  part  not  of  a  student 
but  of  one  who  has  nothing  else  to  do."  A  modern 
commentator  subjoins:  "The  chronology  of  the  royal 
period  is  not  ascertained  ;  it  varies  with  the  various  au- 
thors. The  system  generally  received  is  arbitrary,  and 
supposes  that  there  occurred  in  Israel  one  or  two  inter- 
regna of  which  the  Bible  record  makes  no  mention." 
Under  the  circumstances,  St.  Jerome's  principle  may 
be  invoked,  "  many  things  are  related  in  Scripture  ac- 
cording to  the  opinion  of  the  day,  and  not  according 
to  what  in  reality  took  place  ".  Or,  to  quote  a  recent 
Roman  professor.  Comely,  "  If  in  the  Sacred  Books  God 
had  intended  to  teach  us  chronology  and  history.  Provi- 
dence would  have  taken  care  that  dates,  persons,  names 
of  lands  and  peoples,  should  be  presei-ved  without  error. 
But  how  great  is  the  uncertainty  of  these  particulars  in 
our  editions,  who  does  not  know?"  And  a  German 
Catholic  author  concludes :  "  The  sacred  writers  leave 
the  responsibility  of  borrowed  statements  to  the  source 
whence  they  drew  them,  or  follow  a  recognised  way  of 
thinking  and  speaking  ".^ 

1  Schrader,  Cmteif.  Inscript.,  i.  263-64,  Eng.  Tr.  (1S88). 

2 St.  Jerome,^ J.  Vital.,  Ep.  71 ;  Vigouroux,  M.  B.,  ii.  95-99;  Livres 
Saints,  iv.  499-507;  Comely,  Introd.  Gen.,  582;  Schanz,  Christian 
ApoL,  ii.  434,  Eng.  Tr. 


TRUE  HISTORIES  75 

Truth  and  Candour  in  these  Documents. — As  re- 
gards the  compiler's  religious  temperament,  it  is  shown 
very  clearly  by  his  narration  of  that  commanding  event, 
the  public  recognition  of  Deuteronomy  by  King  Josiah 
and  his  people.  The  language  of  D.  is  frequently  trace- 
able and  its  thought  shapes  the  writer's  judgment ; 
towards  the  end  of  Kings  resemblances  to  Jeremiah 
become  exceedingly  strong  ;  it  has  even  been  held  that 
the  prophet  was  the  compiler.  But  of  this  we  have  no 
other  evidence.  Circular  arguments  in  literary  analysis 
deceive  many,  and  it  is  difficult  to  escape  them.  Where 
no  pressing  need  occurs  to  determine  the  author  (and 
what  need  in  this  case  ?),  abstention  from  surmises  may 
be  wisdom.  Kings,  like  Samuel,  Judges,  Joshua,  we  must 
reckon  to  be  anonymous.  An  experiment  thus  repeated 
will  bring  home  even  to  Western  minds  how  little  did 
the  Oriental  historian  appeal  to  his  own  authority  when 
writing,  or  take  pains  to  subscribe  his  documents.  We 
have  before  us  an  inspired  text ;  but  tradition  prob- 
ably never  knew  the  names  of  its  inspired  authors.  In 
a  true  sense  the  authorship  was  collective,  that  of  a 
school,  J  ah  wist,  Elohist,  Deuteronomic.  So,  too,  Greek 
students  tell  us  of  the  Homeridae,  from  whom  we  have~ 
"received  the  Iliad.  However  sharp  the  critics'  weapon, 
it  seems  unable  to  make  perfectly  clean  divisions.  We 
shall  never  get  a  list  of  independent  writers,  much  less 
be  qualified  to  call  their  names,  in  works  conceived 
on  this  plan.  But  in  the  Bible  their  truth  is  assui-ed 
by  the  seal  of  inspiration  to  which  tradition  testifies, 
and  by  their  transparent  simplicity,  earnestness,  and 
reference  to  sources  far  older  than  their  editing.  Those 
variations  in  detail  which  they  set  down  side  by  side, 
are^oquent  ^pi'oofs  of  a  candour  that  simply  handed  on 
to  after  times  what  it  found  in  its  materials.  The  re- 
trospective judgment  does  not  alter  them.  That  our 
history  of  Israel  and  Judah  can  be  relied  upon  is  the 
verdict  of  all  critics,  even  where  some  as  Rationalists 
have  put  from  them  narratives  in  which  the  supernatural 


^&  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

played  its  part.  Obviously,  such  disputants  trust  in 
their  own  assumptions,  and  subject  literary  methods, 
as  well  as  historical  evidence,  to  an  a  priori  standard. 
But  the  general  course  of  things  from  Joshua  to  the  fall 
of  Judah  is  impugned  by  no  one. 

Chronicles  belong  to  an  age  so  different,  and  were 
written  under  circumstances  so  little  resembling  those 
of  the  present  period  (1200-600  B.C.),  that  it  will  conduce 
to  a  better  apprehension  of  their  drift  and  contents  if 
we  study  them  along  with  the  Hagiographa.  Our  next 
inquiry  must  have  regard  to  the  Prophets. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  LATER  PROPHETS. 

Qreat  Divisions  of  Old  Testament. — Pentateuch, 
ProphetSj  Psalms  are  the  great  divisions  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Each  of  them  is  connected^  in  Hebrew 
and  Christian  tradition  with  a  feading  name — Moses, 
Tsaiah^  David.  The  LXX.  avouch  this  conviction  as 
well  as  the  synagogue  that  presided  over  the  Palestinian 
Bible.  It.is_cchped  in  Ben  Sira  (xlv.  1-5  ;  xlvii.  8-10; 
xlviii.  22-25),  whicTT takes  us  back  to  about  200  B.C. 
Therefore,  in  substance,  it  cannot  be  reasonably  doubted  ; 
for  these  attestations  imply  a  public  official  belief  and 
are  in  themselves  trustworthy.  There  is  something 
impressive  in  the  grouping,  and  to  a  religious  mind 
it  is  Providential.  On  the  part  of  Deity  we  recognise 
the  gift  of  Law,  of  Light,  of  Grace  ;  on  the  part  of  man 
the  corresponding  virtues  of  Obedience,  Eaith  and 
Holiness.  Such  are  "  those  things  which  cannot  be 
shakexLl_(Heb.  xii.  27)  by  any  new  discoveries,  for  the 
seal  set  upon  them  is  a  part  of  Scripture  itself.  But  as 
we  have  allowed  in  Moses  rather  a  creative  influence 
pervading  the  Five  Books  than  a  technical  authorship 
attaching  to  every  sentence,  so  we  may  look  upon 
Isaiah  and  David  as  centres  round  which  other  pro- 
phets and  psalmists  are  clustered,  if  an  examination  of 
style,  circumstances,  or  contents,  should  require  it.  For 
an  apparently  simple  tradition  one  more  elaborate  may 
be  substituted,  when  the  inspired  documents  on  a  scru- 
tiny furnish  thereto  satisfactory  data.  This  proceeding 
would  be  not  only  analytic  but  constructive,  yielding 
its  due  to  each  several  strain  in  the  whole  evidence. 

77 


78  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Composition  of  Isaiah. — In  the  Hebrew  "  Later 
Prophets"  Isaiah  comes  first,  and  includes  sixty-six 
chapters.  Jeremiah  has  fifty-two,  Ezekiel  forty-eight. 
We  infer  that  the  editors  arranged  them  according  to 
size.  The  Minor  Prophets  are  put  together  in  one 
series  afterwards,  albeit  Hosea  preceded  Isaiah  some 
twenty  years.  Amos  also  delivered  his  message  earlier. 
In  the  Talmud,  however,  the  arrangement  Jer.,  Ezek., 
Isa.  has  been  indicated,  which  would  make  for  modern 
views  now  to  be  considered.^  Ben  Sira's  large  refer- 
ence above  is  found  in  the  Greek,  the  Syriac  and  the 
newly  discovered  Hebrew  text.  Add  in  favour  of  tradi- 
tion, Ezra  i.  2,  interpreted  by  Josephus.  Some  fifty 
exact  quotations  from  Isaiah,  and  more  than  forty  not 
literal,  occur  in  New  Testament.  The  prophet's  name 
is  given  fourteen  times ;  citations  are  from  twenty-four 
chapters,  including  fourteen  from  section  xl.-lxvi.  Out- 
side the  New  Testament  Barnabas  and  Clement  of  Rome 
make  between  them  thirty-seven  allusions  to  the  whole 
book,  concerning  the  unity  of  which  no  doubt  was  put 
forward  except  by  Eben  Ezra,  the  mediaeval  critic,  until 
Koppe  (1779-1781),  whom  Doderlein  followed  immedi- 
ately. This  latter  German  distinguished  two  Isaiahs, 
and  the  second  (the  "Great  Unknown")  was  judged  16 
have  written  the  last  twenty-six  chapters  about  540 
B.C.,  not  many  years  before  Cyrus  permitted  the  Jews 
of  Babylon  to  return  from  captivity — a  view  widely  ac- 
cepted by  Protestants.  Of  late  the~system  has  been 
much  complicated  by  further  analysis.  But,  disregard- 
ing this  for  the  while,  it  may  suffice  to  observe  that 
when  the  larger  section  had  been  made,  others  in  the 
First  Isaiah  seemed  necessary  (xiii.-xiv. ;  xxi.  i-io; 
xxiv.-xxvii. ;  xxxvi.  -  xxxix.).  The  two  parts  might 
be  contrasted  for  remembrance  as  the  "  Jerusalem  "  and 
"Babylonian"  Isaiah. 

Since  no  one  doubts  the  prophet's  existence,  or  that 

^Talmud,  Bab.  Bathr.,  14,  15. 


TWO  ISAIAHS  79 

his  mcssafres  arc  contained  (even  if  but  fragments)  in 
our  actual  text,  the  arguments  from  citation  in  Ecclus. 
and  the  New  Testament  are  met  by  extending  their 
connotation.  "  Isaiah  "  would  mean  the  prophetic  roll 
which  begins  with  his  writings,  but  which  need  not  be 
exclusively  from  his  hand — the  "  current  volume,"  or 
the  "  anthology,"  so  to  speak.  We  have  seen  that  St. 
Augustine  employs  a  method  which  is  not  dissimilar, 
setting  little  consequence  on  the  name  of  Zechariah 
or  Jeremiah,  provided  the  text  be  inspired.^  Now, 
there  is  no  question  touching  the  inspiration  of  our 
entire  and  actual  volume,  or  its  right  to  be  termed  the 
"  Book  of  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah".  But  what  reasons 
are  alleged  to  restrict  the  prophet's  share  in  it  ? 

Arpfuments  for  Several  Authors. — Here  we  should 
be  careful  not  to  miss  the  point  of  view.  The  grounds 
for  postulatmg  a  Babylonian  Isaiah  are  not,  first  of  all, 
literary  and  internal ;  they  are  taken  from  what  we 
know  of  the  events  with  which  our  prophet  was  as- 
sociated in  740-700  when  compared  with  another  series 
of  incidents  long  after  his  time,  in  550-536.  Histori- 
cally, the  man  of  whom  we  are  sure  dwells  in  Jerusalem 
one  hundred  and  sixty  years  before  it  is  destroyed. 
He  has  no  concern  with  the  Exile.  He  stands  over 
against  Assyria.  The  crowning  act  of  his  age  is  that 
catastrophe  which  in  701  bcfel  Sennacherib.  No  peril 
from  the  "  Chaldaeans  "  threatened  Judah.  The  rebel 
king  of  Babylon,  named  Merodach  Baladan,  who  in 
711  sent  an  embassy  to  Hezekiah  did  so  in  the 
hope  of  an  alliance  which  might  help  him  to  defeat 
the  Assyrians ;  and  these  under  Shalmancser,  Sargon, 
Sennacherib,  were  conquerors  to  whom  Jerusalem  was 
a  hindrance  in  their  march  upon  Egypt.  Sennacherib 
destroyed  Babylon  in  692  ;  but  this,  instead  of  being 
a  protection  to  the  little  mountain-kingdom  of  Judah, 
would  rather  have  proved  a  menace,  by  no  means  a 

^  De  Consensu  Evang.,  iii.  7. 


80  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

subject  for  rejoicing.  If  xxi.  i-io  were  original,  evi- 
dence to  this  effect  would  be  at  hand.  All  these 
circumstances  give  us  the  occasions  on  which  a  divine 
teacher  at  the  royal  Judaean  court  would  be  impelled 
to  utter  his  message,  fraught  with  demands  for  repent- 
ance, threats  of  chastisement  from  enemies  coming  on, 
and  promises  of  pardon  and  future  glory  for  the  penitent 
House  of  David.^ 

We  cannot  tell  when  or  how  the  "grandaevus  senex" 
of  our  tradition  died, — legends  are  not  to  be  trusted, — 
but  that  such  as  the  above  was  his  political  horizon  we 
do  know,  and  in  2  Kings  xvii.-xx.  it  is  vividly  described. 
Assyria  comes  before  the  reader  as  a  deadly  foe  to 
Hezekiah  and  Jerusalem  ;  Babylon  as  a  friend  seek- 
ing allies.  The  situation  corresponds  with  passages 
not  questioned  in  our  book  that  give  its  religious  inter- 
pretation (leaving  chapters  xxxvi.-ix.  out  of  sight  for 
the  moment). 

But  Isaiah  xl.-Ixvi,  introduces  us  to  quite  a  different 
scenery,  geographical,  political,  and  prophetic.  Unless 
the  general  heading  of  the  volume  covers  it  (which  is 
the  matter  in  dispute)  that  section  remains  anony- 
mous. From  the  earlier  part  it  is  separated  by  three 
chapters  of  history,  not  in  Isaiah's  manner.  Its  date  is 
fixed  by  the  mention  of  Cyrus  III.  (as  we  know  him 
to  be),  the  son  of  Cambyses  and  King  of  Elam,  who 
conquered  Media  in  550  and  Persia  in  548,  and  who 
was  to  enter  Babylon  in  triumph,  October,  538.  Had 
this  great  prophecy  not  been  attached  to  the  roll  in 
which  Isaiah  held  the  opening  place,  no  commentator 
would  have  shrunk  from  fixing  it  to  the  period  thus 
plainly  indicated.  The  analogy  of  prophetic  addresses 
and  oracles  would  lead  us  to  hold  that  between  this 
message  and  the  circumstances  which  gave  rise  to  it 
there  was  a  contemporaneous  historical  association. 
So  it  is  in  the  elder  Israelitish  denouncers  of  idolatry, 

^  Sayce,  Anc.  Empires  of  East,  126-33  ;  Robertson  Smith,  E.  Bi., 
"  Isaiah,"  xiii.,  378. 


THE  PROPHETS  HORIZON  8 1 

Elijah,  FJisha,  Hosea,  Amos ;  the  like  is  manifest 
in  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.  One  other  instance  of  a 
prophecy  detached  from  its  immediate  horizon  is 
brought  forward,  that  of  Daniel.  But  there  also  re- 
search has  found  a  problem,  if  it  has  not  resolved  it. 
What  we  ha\'e  to  weigh  in  a  just  balance  are  alterna- 
tives, one  of  which  follows  the  usual  course  of  Old 
Testament  predictions,  while  the  other  is  almost,  or 
quite,  without  a  parallel.  If  attestation  going  back  to 
the  time  made  it  certain  or  probable  that  Isaiah  of 
Judah  foretold  the  Persian  triumph  and  the  return  of 
the  captives,  we  should  never,  being  orthodox,  dream 
of  opposing  to  that  witness  .  the  limit  invoked  by 
Rationalists.  But  is  there  such  a  decisive  tradition  ? 
For,  as  we  have  been  taught,  the  titles  in  our  Canon 
do  not  guarantee  authorship  in  the  modem  sense. 

If,  then,  a  so-called  "  dogmatic "  argument  is  used 
to  divide  Isaiah,  it  consists  not  in  a  denial  of  possible 
prophetic  vision  extending  to  far-off  periods,  but  in 
the  structure  of  the  Old  Testament  viewed  as  a  whole, 
or  in  the  use  and  wont  of  divinely  enlightened  seers. 
Nothing  could  be  more  orthodox.  It  is  a  cumulative 
and  prescriptive  manner  of  reasoning,  not  abstract, 
but  founded  on  induction  from  particular  instances. 
The  alternative  resembles  a  violent  if  not  unnecessary 
exception.  Orthodox  critics,  of  course,  have  ever  be- 
lieved that  one  and  the  same  prophecy  may  keep  in 
view  more  than  a  single  ternimus  ad  quern ;  in  appli- 
cation it  will  admit  of  enlarged  fulfilment.  But  the 
question  here  is  of  a  terminus  a  quo.  For  the  divine 
messenger  does  not  speak  in  the  air ;  his  audience  are 
his  contemporaries,  and  he  is  bound  to  interest  them 
practically  by  dealing  with  events  in  which  they  have 
an  immediate,  a  pressing  stake.  In  other  words,  the 
Old  Testament  contains  no  prophetic  romances  thrown 
up  into  the  future  as  if  mere  speculations.  This  applies 
to  Daniel  not  less  than  to  Isaiah.  Even  that  wonder- 
ful   forecast   of   Moses   which   fills   chapter   xxviii.    of 


82  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Deuteronomy,  and  certain  verses  of  which  would  seem 
to  depict  not  only  the  Babylonian  captivity  but  the 
dispersion  of  the  Jews  in  times  far  distant  (such  as  it 
came  to  be  in  the  Christian  Middle  Ages),  finds  its 
occasion  and  starting-point  in  a  solemn  recapitulation 
of  the  Law. 

But  for  the  second  group  of  predictions  there  is  no 
connection  brought  into  line  with  Hezekiah's  reign 
and  story.  To  make  it  proceed  from  the  embassy  of 
Merodach  Baladan  would  be  to  suppose  that  the  teacher 
launched  out  into  a  description  of  events  terminating  an 
Exile  of  Judah  yet  to  be,  while  about  the  Exile  itself 
he  had  but  spoken  a  passing  sentence.  What  would 
be  the  drift,  what  the  moral  force,  of  delineations  ap- 
parently so  unreal  ?  The  "  sustained  transference "  to 
a  future,  remote  by  more  than  a  century  and  a  half; 
the  "  detailed  and  definite "  painting  of  circumstances, 
with  a  king's  name  like  Cyrus  plucked  out  of  infinite 
possibilities,  are  indeed  not  to  be  rejected  as  incon- 
ceivable. But  without  evidence  equal  to  their  demands 
on  us,  why  should  they  be  preferred  before  an  hypothesis 
to  which  Hebrew  customs  of  editing  and  preserving 
books  lend  an  air  of  probability?  Neither  from  the 
general  concept  of  inspiration,  nor  on  Messianic  grounds, 
does  it  seem  to  be  required.  For  both  sections  are  due 
to  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  in  each  the  Messiah  is  symbo- 
lised, whether  by  personal  characteristics  or  by  national 
features.  No  article  of  the  creed  has  ever  been  deduced 
from  the  unicity  of  our  volume  as  such. 

At  this  point  may  be  submitted  the  difference  of 
style  between  the  two  Isaiahs,  on  which  it  would  have 
been  hazardous  to  lean  the  whole  weight  of  argument. 
Observe  what  it  really  comes  to.  It  is  not  such  a 
difference  as  can  fairly  be  accounted  for  by  the  half- 
century  during  which  our  prophet  wrote.  Nor  will 
variety  of  subject  explain  it.  The  early  chapters,  terse 
and  restrained,  have  not  only  a  rhythm  of  their  own, 
but  imagery  and  allusions  (what  is  termed  a  copia  ver- 


ARGUMENTS  AND  ANALYSIS  83 

boium)  of  which  in  the  later  not  a  trace  can  be  dis- 
covered. And  some  of  those  "first"  chapters  (xxix.- 
xxxiii.  ;  xxii.-xxxii.)  directed  against  Assyria,  were 
written,  it  is  calculated,  when  the  prophet  was  sixty 
years  of  age.  As  for  the  subject,  Babylonians  and 
Assyrians  might  have  furnished  to  the  same  author 
themes  nearly  identical.  But  in  xl.-xlviii.  the  manner 
is  flowing,  the  tone  impassioned  and  persuasive,  the 
tendency  to  lyric  outbursts  is  marked.  To  which  must 
be  added  a  consideration  going  beyond  style,  and  cer- 
tainly more  in  keeping  with  what  we  know  of  exiled 
Judah ;  the  doctrines  touching  God's  majesty,  a  suffer- 
ing holy  remnant,  Israel's  mission  to  the  Gentiles,  arc 
all  further  developed  in  a  way  to  suggest  that  experi- 
ence, not  mere  anticipation,  lies  at  the  root  of  this 
teaching.  The  Messianic  King  of  Isaiah  in  Jerusalem 
offers  one  aspect  of  Christ ;  the  righteous  Servant  of 
Jahweh  who  redeems  men  by  His  afflictions  another. 
They  meet  in  the  fulfilment ;  but  in  prophecy  they  are 
to  a  certain  degree  separate  and  parallel.^ 

More  Complete  Analysis. — Many  cross-questions 
are  still  left  over.  The  exegetical  data  supplied  by  2 
Isaiah  land  us  in  problems  hitherto  not  susceptible  of  a 
clear  disentanglement,  but  since  1 890  much  tormented 
by  critics.  Chapters  xl.-xlviii.  (the  Cyrus  section)  ex- 
hibit a  unity  of  their  own,  from  which  we  proceed  to 
lii.  12,  where  the  command  to  depart  out  of  Babylon 
is  ready  to  be  accomplished.  Seven  additions  are  reck- 
oned from  this  point  to  the  end  of  the  volume.  Who 
is  the  servant  of  Jahweh  ?  (xlii.  1-4  ;  xlix.  1-6  ;  I.  4-9  ;  lii. 
i3-h'ii.  12).  Prophetically,  Christ  our  Lord  ;  but  imme- 
diately and  for  that  generation  ?  Is  it  Jeremiah,  or  the 
spiritual  Israel  personified  as  distinct  from  the  heathen  ? 
Conjectures  are  many  and  various.  While  some  would 
perceive  in  that  mysterious  figure  elements  more  ancient 
than  the  Exile,  others  term  it  "an  imaginative  fusion 

'  Driver,  Introd.,  223,  225-229  ;  Hastings,  D.  B.,  ii.  493. 

6  * 


84  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

of  all  the  noble  teachers  and  preachers  of  the  Jewish 
religion  in  and  after  the  time  of  Ezra  "}  The  portion 
xlix.-lv.  is  now,  therefore,  assigned  to  a  different  writer 
from  2  Isaiah.  We  may  call  attention  to  the  identical 
ending  of  xlviii.  and  Ivii.  Three  brief  soliloquies  in  Ixi. 
belong  to  the  "Servant".  Chapters  Ivi.-lxvi.,  though 
again  divisible,  are  brought  down  to  the  days  of  Nehe- 
miah  ;  Ixiii.  7  -Ixiv.  12  depict  a  moment  of  persecution, 
perhaps  under  Artaxerxes  Ochus  (424-405).  "  The 
final  redaction  of  xl.-lxvi.  may  be  placed  with  proba- 
bility in  the  early  part  of  the  Greek  period,"  and  "  the 
first  half  of  Isaiah  was  completed  between  250  and 
220  " — a  very  hazardous  post-dating.- 

These  considerations,  whatever  be  their  value,  enable 
us  to  understand  how  Isaiah  of  Jerusalem  has  been 
ousted  even  from  the  first  thirty-nine  chapters  to  a  large 
extent ;  i.-xii.  was  allowed  to  be  of  his  composition,  per- 
haps collected  by  him.  That  view  is  now  modified.  We 
cannot  pursue  the  argument  in  detail  ;  and  we  should 
be  on  our  guard  against  dissection  which  never  escapes 
the  uncertainty  of  its  premisses.  Why  the  "  burden  of 
Babylon"  can  scarcely  belong  to  700  B.C.  has  been 
touched  on  already.  The  best  commentary  on  it  is  the 
long  prophecy  against  "  Babel "  written  in  as  fierce  a 
spirit  (Jer.  l.-li.)  though  by  another  hand.  When  a 
message  can  find  its  place  in  the  Assyrian  period,  no 
reason  for  denying  the  Isaianic  authorship  has  any 
great  weight.  The  episodical  chapters,  xxiv.-xxvii., 
though  obscure,  seem  to  indicate  Babylon  and  the  early 
Exile.  So  xxxiv.-xxxv.  against  Edom  is  dated  after 
586.  The  chapters  which  describe  Sennacherib's  ad- 
vance and  catastrophe,  identical  almost  in  language 
with  2  Kings  xviii.-xx.,  need  not  be  the  prophet's 
handiwork,  but  were  perhaps  taken  from  the  royal 
chronicles.  Attention  has  also  been  drawn  to  the  per- 
spective-like assignment  of  various  Assyrian  invasions 

iC/.  Encycl.  Brit.,  ut  supra,  xiii.  381;  E.  Bi.,  ii.  2205. 
5  Cheyne,  in  E.  Bi.,  2207. 


DIFFICULTIES  OF  OLD  VIEW  85 

to  that  single  monarch  (xxxvi.  19)  in  illustration  of  a 
lower  date.' 

Such,  then,  is  the  modern  position,  at  least  in  outline. 
Where  it  depends  on  a  Rationalistic  a  priori  objection 
to  prophecy  at  large,  or  to  the  forecast  of  particular 
events,  it  is  plainly  repugnant  to  the  whole  Christian 
teaching  and  cannot  Be  maintained.  For  a  criticism  of 
its  arguments  in  this  light  no  room  is  needed.-  On  the 
other  hand,  wc  must  allow  that  efforts  to  prove  the 
intrinsic  unity^of  Jhese  sixty-six  chapters  meet  with 
serious  obstacles.  In  fact,  not  one  of  them  can  be 
deemed  successful.  That  a  deep  division  existed  where 
the  moderns  have  found  it  was  known  to  the  Middle 
Age.  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  wrote :  "  In  the  first  part 
(i.-xxxix.)  is  set  down  the  commination  of  God's  justice 
unto  the  ruin  of  sinners  ;  in  the  second  the  consolation 
of  God's  mercy  unto  the  resurrection  of  the  just".  And 
after  him  Lyranus, "  the  process  of  this  book  is  separated 
into  two  parts — the  casting  down  of  sinners  and  the 
exaltation  of  saints".^  And  the  triple  division,  i.-xii., 
xiii.-xxxv.,  xl.-lxvi.,  with  so  large  an  insertion  as  xxxvi. - 
XXX ix.  breaking  their  synthesis,  will  be  patent  to  every 
reader.  Now  the  question  for  critics  is  whether  all 
these  parts  are  covered  by  that  opening  verse,  "The 
vision  of  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz,  which  he  saw  con- 
cerning Judah  and  Jerusalem  in  the  days  of  Uzziah — 
Hezekiah,  Kings  of  Judah  ".  Do  not  these  words  pre- 
clude quite  other  circumstances — such  as  Exile  and 
Restoration,  with  corresponding  messages  which  for 
the  Judah  and  Jerusalem  of  Hezekiah  would  have  had 
no  relevance  ? 

Schools  of  the  Prophets.— At  the  same  time,  con- 
sider that  prophecy,  though  it  could  not  be  impersonal, 
was  in  some  way  collective,  from  its  rise  in  the  older 

'  Schrader,  Cuneiform  Inscript.,  Eng.  Tr.,  i.  216-70;  Sayce,  Monu- 
mutts,  427. 

'■'Comely,  Introd.  Spec,  ii.  339-50;  Vigouroux,  M.  B.,  ii.  604-12. 
*  Vigouroux,  ut  supra,  ii.  604  ;    Comely,  itt  supra,  319. 


86  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

congregation  of  the  Israelites  until  it  ceased  altogether. 
Companies  of  prophets,  not  unlike  religious  orders,  ex- 
isted in  the  times  of  Samuel,  Elijah,  an3  Amos, — that 
is  to  say,  down  to  the  period  with  which  we  are  dealing 
(i  Sam.  X.  10  ;  i  Kings  xx.  35  ;  Amos  ii.  11,  12).  What 
more  intelligible  than  that  the  written  record  should  be 
the  product  of  master  and  disciples,  and  be  edited  on 
those  methods  which  we  term  compilation,  the  exist- 
ence of  which  in  the  books  of  history  cannot  be  denied  ? 
That  some  insertions  of  this  character  have  found  their 
way  into  Isaiah  would  surely  not  be  impossible.  The 
condition  of  its  last  chapters,  Ivi.-lxvi.,  does  at  least 
favour  this  supposition.  So  does  the  contrast  with 
Ezekiel,  a  signed  book,  homogeneous  after  the  manner 
of  modern  writing.  Jeremiah,  in  its  double  recension 
and  great  disorder,  proves  that  the  documents  were 
loosely  connected,  and  that  the  editing  was  liable  to 
accidents.  But  in  arranging  the  several  collections  a 
principle  of  affinity  would  be  observed.  There  are  in 
'the  two  chief  portions  of  Isaiah  these  resemblances, 
— between  Judah  threatened  by  Assyria  and  Judah 
captive  under  Babylon  ;  between  the  promise  of  an 
Immanuel  or  Messianic  King,  and  that  of  a  deliverer 
like  Cyrus ;  between  Jerusalem  the  centre  that  is  to  be 
of  religious  teaching  for  mankind,  and  the  Servant  of 
Jahweh  who  bears  to  all  men  the  tidings  of  salvation. 
It  does  not  appear  that  Christian  dogma  would  lose  by 
giving  these  distinct  but  not  discordant  parts  to  more 
than  one  messenger.  It  is  certain  that  no  change  would 
result  in  the  substance  or  reasoning  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament as  we  now  possess  it.  Though  a  company  of 
Isaiahs  were  put  for  an  individual,  the  sublime  forecast 
of  chapters  ii.  and  xlv.,  the  Messianic  hopes  of  vii.,  ix., 
xi.,  xxxii.,  liii.,  would  be  fulfilled  in  Christ  and  His 
Church.  Prophetic  scrolls  they  are,  clearly  dated  long 
before  the  world-events  which  brought  out  their  signi- 
ficance ;  and  the  world's  history  shows  on  how  vast  a 
scale  their  promise  has  been  realised. 


SCHOOLS  OF  THE  PROPHETS  87 

Again,  therefore,  the  critical  problem  would  appear 
to  be  one  of  adjustment,  as  in  handling  the  Pentateuch. 
We  note  in  the  parallels  and  quotations,  which  make 
u"]?  so  large  a  part  of  this  literature,  as  it  were  an  in- 
ternal canon  founded  upon  community  of  ideas,  little 
heeding  what  is  elsewhere  termed  originality,  and  a 
true  "  school  of  the  Prophets  ".  Between  2  Isaiah  and 
Jer.,  Ezek.,  Nahum,  Zephaniah  many  such  coincidences 
of  thought  or  language  have  been  observed,  and  the 
inference  is  drawn  that  they  bear  testimony  to  the  tra- 
ditional view  in  favour  of  a  single  teacher,  living  to  a  very 
advanced  age.  But  this  can  hardly  be  judged  other 
than  reasoning  in  a  circle ;  we  must  find  out  inde- 
pendently which  came  first,  and  who  was  the  imitator. 
The  important  fact  is  that  unity  of  spirit  by  which  we 
are  protected  from  losing  the  divine  judgments  that 
Scripture  has  been  commissioned  to  unveil.  Repetition  . 
is  their  safeguard.  We  shall  never  know  under  what 
particular  circumstances  many  of  them  were  delivered, 
and  not  always  by  what  lips.  But  was  this  necessary 
for  their  chief  import,  which  is  the  Messianic  ? 

Summing  up. — Until  the  Church  utters  her  sentence, 
individual  writers  would  manifestly  be  exceeding  their 
commission,  if  they  did  more  than  set  out  the  reasons 
on  each  side,  within  the  bounds  of  orthodoxy,  for  the 
opinions  advanced.  That  our  Book  of  Isaiah  is  sacred 
and  canonical  we  have  been  taught  by  conciliar  deci- 
sions. That  it  contains  the  prophecies  of  the  son  of 
Amoz  tradition  tells  us,  and  critics  of  every  shade 
maintain.  But  whether  it  holds  any  besides  them, 
and,  if  so,  which  are  the  additions  to  the  original  stock, 
authority  has  not  thus  far  pronounced.^ 

Book  of  Jeremiah. — Jeremiah  comes  next  in  our 
Western  Bibles  and  the  present  Massorah.  But  that 
was  not  always  the  way,  if  we  may  trust  the  Talmudic 
reference  given  above.     The  oldest  witness  to  our  ac- 

*  Vide  on  the  whole  question,  Condamin,  Le  Lii>re  d'Isdie, 


88  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

tual  arrangement  is  St.  Jerome  (380  A.D.).  How  large 
was  the  original  volume  ?  This  question  is  one  of  the 
most  intricate  in  all  Scripture.  To  the  Fathers  from 
Origen  downwards,  Jeremiah  included  Lament-ations  and 
Baiiich(or  at  least  the  Epistle  in  B.).  Seven  instances 
are  noted  of  allusions  to  lost  passages  (2  Chr.  xxxv.  25  ; 
xxxvi.  22;  2  Mace.  ii. ;  Matt,  xxvii.  9;  Eph.  v.  14; 
outside  the  Bible,  Justin,  Contr.  Tryphon,  72  ;  Lact,  48). 
According  to  Graf  the  book  is  "  not  a  collection,  but 
rather  a  larger  whole  arising  out  of  an  originally  com- 
plete work  through  addition  and  expansion  ".  Others 
prefer  to  look  on  it  as  made  up  of  several,  perhaps 
seven,  distinct  groups  of  writings.  It  is  remarkable 
that  the  Greek  version  differs  from  Massorah  not  only 
in  arrangement  and  contents  but  in  being  as  much  as 
2,700  words  short  of  the  Hebrew,  Two  recensions  are 
therefore  suggested,  of  which  the  Greek  would  represent 
the  earlier.  But  since  we  cannot  make  out  in  the  text 
at  our  disposal  any  definite  order  of  times  or  topics,  the 
problem  raised  is  perhaps  insoluble.  "  On  the  whole,"  says 
Driver,  "  the  Massoretic  text  deserves  the  preference."  ^ 

We  learn  from  Jer.  xxxvi.  how  the  prophet  in  the 
fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  (604  B.C.)  dictated  his  words 
to  Baruch  who  wrote  them  in  a  roll ;  how  the  roll  was 
burnt  by  the  King ;  and  how  a  second  was  prepared 
"  from  the  mouth  of  Jeremiah,  and  many  words  added  " 
to  the  first  copy.  Spinoza  judged  that  this  MS.  had 
been  preserved  in  i.-xx.  Extreme  critics  question  if 
any  portion  of  it  is  extant,  and  deny  to  the  prophet  not 
indeed  the  origination  of  materials  yet  existing,  but  their 
written  authorship.  We  need  not  take  into  account 
others  more  fantastic,  such  as  Havet  and  Vernes,  who 
call  the  book  a  pseudepigraph  and  will  not  allow  that 
Jeremiah  ever  lived.  But  extravagances  of  this  kind 
warn  us  how  literary  dreams  may  lead  astray.^ 

It  is,  therefore,  not  to  be  doubted  that  in  our  canonical 

^Introd.,  254;  cf,  also  Comely,  Introd.  Spec,  ii.  371. 
^E.  Bi.,  2372-81;  Hastings,  D.  B.,  ii.  573-76. 


THE  NEW  COVENANT  89 

book  as  now  given  to  us  we  are  reading  the  messages 
of  this  singularly  Christian  teacher.  He  was  born  about 
650,  began  to  prophesy  in  625,  and  went  on  all  through 
the  period  of  reformation  inaugurated  by  Deuteronomy, 
which  was  brought  to  a  sad  conclusion  when  josiah, 
wounded  at  Megiddo,  returned  to  die  in  Jerusalem  (608). 
His  mission  continued  down  to  the  fall  of  Judah  and 
beyond  it.  From  xlii.-xliv.  we  learn  that  he  was  taken 
by  Johanan  the  son  of  Karcah  into  Egypt,  where,  as 
legends  relate,  he  suffered  martyrdom.  Those  critics 
who  break  up  ancient  books  according  to  their  fancies, 
without  regard  to  tradition,  Hebrew  or  CJhristian,  assure 
us  that  Jeremiah  was  not  the  "prophet  of  the  new 
covenant"  (xxxi.  31),  neither  did  he  foretell  the  return 
of  the  exiles  after  seventy  years  (xxv.  11,  12);  he  had 
no  share  in  Lamentations.  Such  things  were  ascribed 
to  him,  say  these  commentators,  on  the  faith  of  oracles 
which  he  never  pronounced. 

But  we  cannot  put  aside,  on  grounds  as  unsubstantial 
as  they  are  subjective,  testimony  which  goes  back  farther 
than  300  B.C.  The  "new  covenant"  is  plain  enough 
in  Deuteronomy,  a  discovery  of  his  time,  saturated 
with  ideas  of  which  our  text  is  full,  Jeremiah  has 
even  been  picked  out  as  its  author.  And  whether  he 
imitated  2  Isaiah  or  that  work  was  produced  after  he 
had  written,  the  notion  of  a  return  from  captivity  can 
never  have  died  away  among  the  exiles  (xxx.  10,  11, 
"my  servant  Jacob").  There  is  no  reason  why  the 
preacher  who  counselled  his  fellow-citizens  to  abide  in 
the  land  rather  than  go  down  to  Egypt  should  have 
debarred  himself  from  hopes  of  a  general  restoration 
(xxxii.  1-15).  But  the  moderns  who  thus  crib  and 
cabin  the  work  of  Jeremiah  do  not  hesitate  to  question 
the  return  from  exile  under  Cynjs.  In  other  words, 
they  forsake  altogether  the  canons  of  testimony  wh(  n 
it  suits  them,  and  construct  historical  romances  on 
mere  supposition.^ 

'  Especially  Schmidt,  E.  Bi.,  2371,  2384. 


90  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Without  attempting  a  complete  analysis,  we  remark 
that  i,-xx,  stands  by  itself  as  a  vision  of  judgment ; 
xxi.-xxxiii.  seems  to  apply  its  details  to  the  Chaldsean 
invasion  ;  xxxiv.-xlv,  narrates  the  Prophet's  task  and 
sufferings ;  xlvi.-li.  exhibits  a  series  of  denunciations 
addressed  to  the  enemies  of  Israel.  The  last  section  is 
transferred  by  the  LXX.  to  xxv.  13,  where  it  fits  in  more 
consistently.  How  ancient  is  the  text  of  Jeremiah  (not 
counting  additions)  will  appear  from  this,  that  in 
common  with  Ezekiel  it  gives  the  correct  name  of  the 
great  Babylonian  King,  vzz.,  Nebuchadrezzar ;  while  in 
2  Kings,  Chron.,  Daniel,  it  is  wrongly  rendered.  Re- 
petitions and  quotations  from  earlier  books  are  more 
frequent  than  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament.  The 
style  is  diffuse,  often  without  colour,  and  betrays  a  kind 
of  decadence  ;  but  in  no  teaching  under  the  Law  do  we 
perceive  a  deeper  spiritual  consciousness.  The  Book  of 
Jeremiah  is  in  many  ways  a  true  Prczparatio  Evmigelica}.-. 

When  the  existence  of  stages  and  redactions  in  our 
book  is  granted,  whether  we  follow  the  Massoretes  or 
the  LXX.,  it  is  obvious  that  we  cannot  determine  in  what 
form  a  prophecy  like  that  against  Babylon  (l.-li.)  was 
first  uttered,  nor  its  date  and  circumstances.  However, 
we  do  know  that  the  political  system,  so  to  call  it,  of 
Jeremiah  favoured  the  Babylonians  ;  and  on  this  account 
a  forecast  which  exults  in  their  downfall  would  belong 
rather  to  the  days  when  Cyrus  was  marching  to  conquer 
them.  Other  difficulties  are  the  reference  to  the  Medes 
and  to  a  long  past  ruin  of  Jerusalem.  Need  we  suppose 
(or  can  we,  indeed  ?)  that  the  volume  was  finally  sealed 
up  by  its  author?  "Probably  the  collection  was  not 
formed  before  the  close  of  the  Exile," '-^  Has  Catholic 
dogma  principles  which  militate  against  this  view  ?  It 
would  hardly  seem  so.     The  great  age  of  Jeremiah, 

*  St.  Jerome  in  Jer.  vi.,  "  in  the  majesty  of  his  meaning  most  pro- 
found ". 

^  See  the  common  view  defended  in  Comely,  ut  supra,  398,  402 ; 
and  a  moderate  suggestion  in  Driver,  250-52. 


JEREMIAH— LAMENTATIONS  9I 

perhaps  ninety  years,  if  he  delivered  l.-h'.,  is  of  course  not 
impossible  ;  but  we  may  surely  bear  in  mind  that  titles 
and  superscriptions  of  chapters  are  as  a  rule  later  than 
their  contents  and  do  not  per  se  come  under  the  terms 
of  inspiration.  "Of  Catholic  interpreters  not  a  few 
ancient  and  modern,"  says  Comely,  "  reckon  that  the 
last  chapter  was  added  by  Baruch,  or  more  probably  by 
Esdras,  from  writings  of  Jeremiah."  ^ 

Origin  and  Date  of  Lamentations. — Lamentations, 

according  to  St.  Jerome,  had  in  his  day  the  title  Kinoth, 

instead  of  the  opening  word   "  Aichah  "  (Ah,  how!), 

which  now  describes  it  in  Hebrew.     This  name  is  also 

used  in  Talmud  {Baba  Bathra,  15  a).     Josephus  appears 

to  have  known  the  "  Elegy  of  Jeremiah  on  the  death  of 

Josiah".^     The  preface  in  the  LXX.  names  Jeremiah 

as  the   author.      Origen,   Hilary,   Epiphanius  join  the 

Prophet's  book  with  Lament,  and  Epistle.     St.  Jerome 

observes  the  ancient  Jewish  custom  to  this  effect,  but  adds 

that  "  some  inscribe  Ruth  and  Kinoth  among  the  Hagio- 

grapha  ".     Melito  of  Sardis  follows  the  use  of  Palestine 

and  omits  the  poem  from  his  catalogue,  i.e.,  does  not 

count  it  separately.     In  the  Greek  and  Vulgate,  as  in 

the  versions,  it   stands  immediately  after   its   reputed 

composer.     So  natural  was  the  union  of  both  volumes 

that  in  the  Tridentine  decree  it  is  taken  for  granted,  and 

we  read  simply  "  Jeremias  with  Baruch  ". 

There  would  seem  to  be  no  solid  ground  for  attacking 
this  position.  But  it  has  not  been  left  without  criticism, 
literary  rather  than  historical.  In  Jer.  we  have  remarked 
a  slackness  of  style  which  does  not  strike  us  in  Lamenta- 
tions. He  is  the  least  artificial  of  writers ;  would  he 
then  set  himself  to  compose  as  here  in  acrostics,  with 
elaborate  verse-making  and  a  highly  conscious  art  ? 
Many  fresh  words  occur  in  the  elegy  ;  the  point  of  view 
does  not  always  agree  with  that  which  is  common  in  the 
prophetic  volume.     The  balance  of  internal    evidence 

'  Ut  supra,  401.  ^Antiquities,  x.  5. 


g2  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

hardly  favours  Jeremiah.  Such  are  the  main  reasons 
alleged,  of  no  great  weight  in  themselves,  while  the 
external  witness  happens  to  be  strong  enough  for  ac- 
quiescence in  the  old  opinion.  At  the  same  time  nothing 
appears  to  depend  on  either  alternative,  so  far  as  Reve- 
lation is  concerned.^  "  The  points  of  affinity  between 
Lamentations  v.  and  Job,  Psalms,  and  2  and  3  Isaiah 
deserve  attention,"  says  a  destructive  critic  who  would 
bring  the  poem  down  to  470-450,  or  even  later.  But  we 
need  not  pursue  these  conjectures.  For  even  this  theory 
allows  that  when  Chronicles  were  written,  "  the  book 
was  used  Hturgically  by  a  guild  of  singers  and  a  portion 
of  it  was  ascribed  to  Jeremiah  ".^ 

Baruch  and  Epistle. — Baruch  and  the  Epistle  are 
not  extant  in  Hebrew.^  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
of  their  Jewish  origin,  which  is  indeed  strongly  marked. 
Since,  however,  they  belong  to  the  fragments  known  as 
"  deutero-canonical "  and  in  their  present  state  are  found 
only  in  the  LXX.,  we  may  put  off  observation  upon 
them  until  we  discuss  the  special  books  of  that  larger 
catalogue.  Meanwhile,  these  additions  to  the  Prophet 
have  always  been  cited  by  the  Catholic  Fathers  as 
"  divine  Scripture "  and  the  teaching  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.* 

Prophecy  of  Ezekiel. — Of  all  writings  in  the  Old 
Testament  scarcely  one  is  less  familiar  to  average  Chris- 
tians than  Ezekiel.  Among  the  Jews  it  was  held  to  be 
a  work  so  mysterious  that,  as  the  story  runs,  its  first 
twelve  chapters  (known  as  "  Merkabah  "  or  the  Chariot 
of  God)  were  kept  from  the  eyes  of  men  who  had  not 
reached  their  thirtieth  year.^  For  "  modern"  critics  it  has 
quite  another  importance, — first,  as  being  one  of  the  few 
among  sacred  volumes  unmistakably  written  and  signed 
by  its  alleged  author ;  second,  as  furnishing  tokens  of  the 
movement  in  ritual  and  sacred  rule  out  of  which  came 

'Comely,  ut  supra,  402-11.         -  Cheyne,  E.  Bi.,  2701-5. 

^St.  Jerome,  Comm   in  Jer.  Prolog.       ^  Corneiy,  mJ  supra,  427. 

''Orig.,  In  Caul.  Prolog.;  Jerome,  Ad.  Paitlin.,  Ep.  53. 


IMPORT  OF  EZEKIEL  93 

the  Priestly  Code.  Thus  its  last  section  (xl.-xlviii.),  long 
looked  upon  as  hopelessly  obscure,  is  now  thought  to  be 
the  best  starting-point  for  discussions  about  the  Hexa- 
teuch.  On  this  view  Ezekiel  is  considered  as  a  profound 
theologian,  whose  inspired  principles  led  up  to  the  sacer- 
dotal and  Rabbinical  Judaism  which  flourished  under 
the  second  Temple.  When  the  Talmud  informs  us  that 
"  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue  wrote  Ezekiel,"  this 
would  be  the  connection  really  implied.  There  was 
never  a  Great  Synagogue;  but  Israel  did  enter  upon 
a  strictly  theocratical  stage  after  the  Return  to  Jerusalem. 
The  Priestly  Codex,  it  is  true,  superseded  "  Ezekiel's 
Torah " ;  his  description  of  the  new.  service  and  sites 
did  not  answer  to  the  conditions  fulfilled  ;  but  he  antici- 
pated the  form  of  that  later  "  house  of  Israel,"  and  the 
name  of  that  Holy  City,  "the  Lord  is  there".  His 
religious  ideas  carry  us  on  from  Jeremiah  to  the  New 
Testament,  for  they  unite  a  strict  system  of  worship 
with  inward  holiness.  It  has  been  well  said  that  "  he 
gave  definite  and  almost  dogmatic  expression  to  the 
great  religious  truths  which  were  the  presuppositions  of 
all  previous  prophecy,  combining  these  into  a  compre- 
hensive theory  of  the  Divine  Providence  ;  and,  by  giving 
a  peculiar  direction  to  the  Messianic  hope,  he  made  it 
a  practical  ideal  in  the  mind  of  the  nation,  and  the  start- 
ing point  of  a  new  religious  development  ".^ 

Its  Divisions  and  Character. — Ezekiel  was  one  of 
the  captives  taken  along  with  Jehoiakin  to  Babylonia 
in  597.  He  was  settled  in  a  Hebrew  deportation  at 
Tel-Abib,  near  the  canal  of  Chebar.  A  priest  of  high 
authority,  Ezekiel  received  his  call  to  be  a  prophet  in 
592  ;  the  latest  reference  in  his  book  is  to  570  (xxix. 
17).  Three  sections  are  noted  :  i.-xxiv.,  the  approaching 
fall  of  Jerusalem,  which  took  place  in  586 ;  xxv.-xxxii., 
prophecies  against  foreign  nations  ;  xxxiii.-xlviii.,  Israel's 
future  glory.     Various  of  these  messages  are  dated  with 

lEzek.  xxxix.  21-29;  xlviii.  35;  Driver,  Introd.,  277-78;  Hastings, 
D.  B.,  i.  818. 


94  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

precision ;  the  question  how  they  were  fulfilled  opens, 
as  Ezekiel  himself  indicates,  another  on  the  scope  of 
conditional  prophecy  (xiv.  15-23;  xxix.  18).  The  ruin 
of  Jerusalem  proved  that  his  forewarnings  had  come 
from  Jahweh.  And  in  xxxviii.-xxxix.  he  declares  that 
in  a  battle  of  the  nations  (probably  suggested  by  the  great 
Scythian  inroads  ^emp.  Josiae)  the  Lord's  name  would 
triumph.  This  gathering  to  an  Armageddon  fight, 
pictured  also  in  Joel  and  Zechariah,  became  henceforth 
an  element  in  the  Apocalypses  which,  after  Judah  was 
led  captive,  held  so  notable  a  place  in  Jewish  literature. 
Whatever  be  the  immediate  purpose  of  xxxiii.-xlviii., 
to  this  kind  of  vision  the  prophecy  belongs,  combining 
experience  and  reflection  into  a  new  form.  Such  ideal- 
ising glances  towards  the  future  did  not  claim  to  be 
literally  correspondent  with  after-times;  they  looked, 
we  may  say,  to  a  polity  stored  up  in  Heaven.  And 
here,  as  elsewhere,  it  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth. 

Hence,  though  Ezekiel  often  shows  a  corrupt  and 
embarrassed  MS.,  we  need  not  charge  upon  his  editors 
wilful  tampering.  If,  with  Josephus,  we  allow  two 
books,  or  divisions,  we  may  grant  a  second  manipulation 
of  the  whole  by  its  author,  as  moderns  would  wish. 
The  highly  figurative  but  artificial  manner,  with  its 
novel  expressions  and  its  Aramaisms,  the  trances  and 
spiritual  raptures  in  which  the  prophet  seems  to  be 
present  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  growing  sense  of  in- 
dividual responsibility,  are  all  presages  of  a  time  veiy 
unlike  that  when  Israel  had  kings  ruling  over  it  and 
prophets  were  sent  to  rebuke  them.  Now,  it  is  the 
people  of  Jahweh  with  whom  we  are  concerned,  the 
holy  remnant,  soon  to  be  called  the  "  poor "  and  the 
"  afflicted,"  whose  name  in  2  Isaiah  prepares  us  for  our 
Lord's  utterance  of  the  Beatitudes  and  St.  Paul's  theme 
of  the  spiritual  Israel.  Yet  his  adoption  of  imagery 
from  Babylon,  which  is  everywhere  visible  (remark 
especially  the  great  scene  of  Jahweh's  enthronement, 
i.  4-28,  and  the  description  of  the  Prince  of  Tyre,  xxvi.- 


THE  LA  W  OF  HOLINESS  95 

xxviii.),  connects  our  prophet  with  the  early  parts  of 
Genesis,  and  he  would  stand  thus  like  a  central  figure 
to  the  whole  Hebrew-Christian  scheme.  From  first  to 
last  throughout  the  Scriptures,  Babel  and  Jerusalem  are 
related,  in  opposition  or  reconcilement,  much  as  the 
Gospel  and  the  Hellenic  Renaissance  have  been  in 
modem  Europe. 

Ezekiel's  Relation  to  the  Hexateuch. — If  it  were 
decided  that  the  whole  legislation  in  the  Pentateuch  is 
from  the  hand  of  Moses,  a  difficulty  would  be  to  explain 
how  any  later  prophet  could  have  dreamt  of  remodel- 
ling the  Torah.  On  the  other  hand,  compilation-views 
would  permit  additions  and  adaptations  to  changed  cir- 
cumstances. The  position  of  Ezekiel,  we  saw  long  ago, 
is  judged  by  critics  to  be  an  advance  on  Deuteronomy 
and  a  step  towards  P.  C.  The  crucial  evidence  is  found 
in  Dt.  xviii.  i-8,  where  all  the  Levites  are  reckoned  as 
priests,  when  compared  with  Ez.  xliv.  15,  which  allows 
only  of  Zadokites  at  the  altar.  Then  our  attention  is 
drawn  to  the  so-called  Law  of  Holiness  (Lev.  xvii.-xxvi,), 
which  in  language  and  ideas  would  appear  to  be  closely 
connected  with  our  prophet.  H.  seems  to  repeat,  while 
it  modifies,  whatever  was  laid  down  by  him  regarding 
the  priesthood,  which  there  is  confined  to  the  sons  of 
Aaron  (Lev.  xxi.  i).  The  festal  and  jubilee  ceremonies 
are  in  H.  more  elaborate;  in  particular,  observe  the 
Feasts  of  first  fruits,  and  of  trumpets,  and  the  Day  of 
Atonement.  Critics  believe,  therefore,  that  Ezekiel 
traced  the  outline  of  H. ;  but  that  H.  itself  comes  later, 
though  not  by  a  large  interval.  And  conservative 
champions  would  explain  the  affinities  between  H. 
and  Ezekiel  by  reversing  the  connection,  while  insist- 
ing that  no  Laws,  properly  so  termed,  were  enacted  in 
Ez.  xl.-xlviii.^ 

We  .should  now  in  the  order  of  the  Vulgate  consider 
Daniel,  the  "last  of  the  four  Greater  Prophets".     But 

'Critical  view,  E.  Bi.,  1458-71,  3880;    conservative.  Comely,  ut 
supra,  ii.  455-59  and  i.  136-54.     On  H.  see  Driver,  Introd.,  43,  54,  13S. 


9^  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

fully  to  understand  the  modern  opinions  and  theii 
grounds,  according  to  which  Daniel  is  rather  an  apoca- 
lypse than  a  prophecy,  it  will  be  more  convenient  if  we 
observe  the  Hebrew  sequence  and  treat  of  the  book 
among  the  Hagiographa.  That  it  is  canonical,  what- 
ever be  its  date  and  authorship,  admits  of  no  question. 
And,  since  it  is  canonical,  it  must  be  inspired.  Its 
place  in  the  Massoretic  arrangement  shows  that  public 
recognition  came  to  it  long  after  the  list  of  prophets 
had  been  closed.  Whether  it  proves  anything  more  we 
will  examine  at  the  proper  time. 

The  Minor  Prophets. — In  dealing  with  our  next 
Hebrew  volume,  the  twelve  Minor  Prophets,  we  should 
be  happy  to  follow  the  chronological  succession.  Per- 
haps that  order  was  intended  by  the  unknown  editors  ; 
but  a  severe  scrutiny  will  not  allow  us  to  conclude  tliat 
as  the  names  occur  so  the  periods  to  which  they  belong 
are  fixed.  Moreover,  the  Hebrew  and  Alexandrian 
sequences  do  not  agree.  According  to  the  LXX.,  Hosea, 
Amos,  Micah,  precede  the  rest, — an  order  which  critical 
arguments  appear  to  justify ;  we  may  assign  them  re- 
spectively to  B.C.  746,  740,  700,  or  the  age  of  Isaiah. 
By  the  destruction  of  Thebes  in  Egypt  we  fix  a  date 
for  Nahum,  who  refers  to  that  event  of  664,  and  who 
prophesies  the  fall  of  Nineveh  in  606.  Zephaniah  de- 
nounced Judaean  idolatries,  as  is  thought  before  Josiah's 
acceptance  of  Dt.  in  621.  Habakkuk,  foreboding  the 
advance  of  the  Chaldaeans, "  that  bitter  and  hasty  nation," 
is  set  down  at  608-598.  Obadiah  expressed  the  fierce 
anger  of  Judah  which  Edom,  in  some  crisis  of  Hebrew 
story,  had  provoked  ;  but  he  has  so  much  in  common 
with  an  original  which  Jeremiah  likewise  followed  as  to 
leave  us  uncertain  where  he  intervenes.  The  year  586 
and  the  misfortunes  which  it  brought  may  have  roused 
him  to  prophesy.  An  interval  of  sixty  years  leads  on 
to  the  building  of  the  second  Temple,  to  Haggai  (520) 
and  Zechariah  (518),  both  at  Jerusalem.  But  while 
Zechariah  is  the  acknowledged  author  of  his  i.-viii.,  the 


LAW,  PROPHECY,  AND  PSALMS  97 

time  and  composition  of  ix.-xiv.  are  much  disputed. 
That  it  is  post-exilic  (518-458,  or  even  432-300)  seems 
to  be  the  prevailinjr  opinion  ;  others  assign  it  to  the  close 
of  the  Jewish  monarchy  (600).  Joel,  formerly  considered 
very  ancient  (837-800),  is  placed  between  500  and  460. 
Whatever  be  the  view  taken  of  Jonah, — history  or 
parable, — its  present  form  is  dated  in  the  fifth  century 
B.C.  That  Malachi  (perhaps  a  name  devised  from  the 
book  itself)  ^as last  of  the  prophets  is  universally  ad- 
mitted ;  and  no  one  holds  now,  as  St.  Jerome  did,  that 
he  is  identical  with  Ezra.  If  we  write  opposite  his  final 
words  the  year  458,  it  is  that  we  may  bear  in  mind  how 
prophecy  had  expn-ed  when  the  period  of  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  opened.  Henceforth,  law  and  literature,  both 
imder  keepinj^  of  the  priesthood,  were  to  furnish  Hebra- 
ism with  its  motive  power.^ 

Towards  a  Religion  of  Humanity. — Of  the  twelve, 
Hosea,  Amos,  and  Micah  stand  out  as  leaders  in  the 
movement  towards  a  universal  religion  which  Isaiah 
celebrates  and  exemplifies.  There  is  a  true  sense  in 
calling  them  the  Christian  prophets  of  O.  T.  Not 
only  do  they  denounce  idols,  they  uphold  the  ne- 
cessity of  a  moral  reformation,  of  holiness  in  the 
heart ;  and  they  speak  vehemently  in  disparagement 
of  those  who  would  trust  to  rites  and  fasting  while 
no  inward  change  was  sought  by  them.  In  these 
minor  prophets  the  strain  is  audible  which  we  hear  as 
it  swells  to  a  world-harmony  in  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah. 
Prophecy  docs,  indeed,  revere  the  Law,  but  knows  it  to 
be  spiritual,  not  a  mere  outward  or  carnal  observance. 
And  thus  we  may  say  of  these  high  teachers  that  they 
were  the  lights  also  of  Psalmody,  which  by  prayer  and 
meditation  appropriated  the  Law  to  the  individual. 
These  three  elements  of  one  Revelation  are  so  diverse 
that,  in  impassioned  harangue  or  argument  directed  to 
a  single  end,   they  may  at  times  fall   into  antithesis, 

^  Older  views  in  Cornely,  hit.  Spec,  ii.  520-23 ;  recent  in  Driver, 
Introd.  Lit.O.T.,  280-336, 

7 


98  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

particularly  under  the  conditions  of  Hebrew  speech. 
But  a  work  like  Deuteronomy  will  show  us  how  en- 
tirely they  agree  at  last,  by  its  borrowing  from  each 
in  turn.  The  Law  cannot  exist  without  temple  and 
sacrifice ;  what  the  Prophet  asks  is  that  these  earthly 
signs  should  be  spiritually  apprehended  ;  and  the  "  sweet 
psalmist  of  Israel "  muses  on  God's  dealings  in  rites  and 
history  that  he  may  attain  to  Ihe  New  Covenant  that 
shall  be  written  in  the  heart  (Jer.  xxxi.  31-33).  We  per- 
ceive, as  we  follow  the  growth  of  Hebraism,  that  its 
progress  depended  on  a  certain  opposition  of  ideas,  to 
be  reconciled  when  Christ  came.  He  was  Law-giver, 
Priest  and  Prophet  in  one,  bringing  to  perfection  the 
promise  of  which  the  Old  Testament  is  the  record  and 
the  instrument. 


CHAPTER  V. 

PSALMS,  HEBREW  WISDOM,  HAGGADAH. 

Third  Jewish  Canon — Ketubim.— In  Massoretic  lists 
and  Spanish  MSS.  the  Book  of  Chronicles  precedes 
the  Psalms.  But  in  printed  Hebrew  we  find  Psalms 
at  the  head  of  '^etubim,"  i.e.,  the  third  Jewish 
-Canon,  The  Vulgate,  however,  which  divides  fhe  Old 
Testament  into  prose  and  poetry,  begins  what  we  may 
term  its  second  division  with  Job.  P'or  the  criticism 
on  which  we  are  now  engaged  it  seems  advisable  to  take 
first  of  all  the  great  Hymn-book,  written  for  praise  and 
meditation,  as  a  prelude  to  our  study  of  Haggadic 
literature,  using  that  expression  not  strictly  but  in  the 
general  sense  of  'imoralising".  Whether  psalm,  pro- 
verb, or  story,  the  portion  of  Holy  Scripture  named  in 
the  Septuagint  Hagiographa  displays  a  certain  detach- 
ment from  the  objective  style  of  which  Judges,  Samuel, 
and  Kings  are  instances.  We  feel  that  prophets  and  "  wise 
men  "  have  taught  Israel  to  recognise  its  mission,  or  have 
formed  its  character,  so  intensely  practical  on  one  side, 
so  enthusiastic  on  the  other,  by  their  musings  and 
"  forthsayings  ".  Historically,  the  kind  of  poem  which 
we  read  in  the  Psalms  is  ancient.  But  as  it  remains  and 
is  recited  by  Jews  and  Christians  at  this  day,  it  bears 
upon  its  features  the  colour  given  to  it  by  a  succession 
of  prophets,  fixed  in  the  Temple-Liturgy. 

Accadian  Hymns. — Without  speaking  of  "  origins," 
at  present  far  beyond  our  ken,  we  are  aware  that 
hymns. . of  praise  {Tchillim)  or  of  prayer  {TepliillotJi) 
go  back  to  periods  long  before  David  and  even  Moses. 

"99  7* 


lOO  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

The  great  religious  centres  of  early  ^Babylonian  wor- 
ship were  at  Nippur  and  Eridu ;  the  language  of  their 
ritual    was  Accadian.      From    Eridu  probably  it  was 
that  Babylon  took  its  rise.     Then  followed  the  Semitic 
conquest  of  those  lands  from   North  Arabia,  the  co- 
lonisation of  Assyria,  the  fusion  of  creeds  and  deities, 
the  compilation  of  sacred  books.     The  hymns  to  the 
gods,  already  extant  in  Sumerian,  were  translated  into 
Semitic  Babylonian,  and  published  in  two  great  books. 
New    hymns    were    composed,    but    though     written 
by  Semite  priests  (closely  akin   to  the  Hebrews)  the 
language  of  them   was   Accadian,  an  extinct  dialect. 
Of  these  devout  recitations,  in  which  the  ideas  of  sin, 
repentance,  and   forgiveness   from   God   are  prevalent, 
many   survive,   and    their   likeness   to    our    Psalms   is 
unpiistakable.      They    do,   indeed,    mingle    charms  or 
conjuring    with   spiritual   aspirations ;    yet   there   is    a 
tone  of  fervour,  and  sometimes  more  than  a  trace  of 
confidence,  especially  when  the  "  culture-hero  "  Marduk 
is  called  upon, — "  the  pitiful  god  who  raises  the  dead  to 
life  "  as  though  acting  the  part  of  a  redeemer, — which 
warn  us  against  the  fancy  indulged  by  literary  critics, 
that  no  Psalms  of  Israel  could  much  antedate  the  Exile. 
On  the  contrary,  we  must  reckon  hymns  like  these  to  be 
exceedingly  primitive ;  since  the  prayers  of  Nebuchad- 
rezzar, which  are  still  in  existence,  while  they  approach 
the  language  of  monotheism,  follow  in  their  conception 
outpourings  far  more  antique.      The   actual  words  of 
such  old  Chaldaean  Psalms  have  been  deciphered.^ 

Ewald's  Division  of  Psalms. — From  the  editor's 
point  of  view,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  "  five 
Books  "  into  which  our  1 50  pieces  are  collected,  belong 
to  various  times.  The  natural  division,  it  has  been  said, 
is  into  three— Ps.  i.-xli. ;  xlii.-lxxxix. ;  xc.-cl.  (following 
the  Hebrew).     Ewald  was  of  opinion  that  xlii.-l.  once 

iSayce,  Social  Life,  Assyr.  Bab.,  108-23;  also  Lect.  Babylon, 
Religion  ;  Birch,  Records  of  Past ;  McCurdy,  Hisi.  Proph.  and  Man., 
etc. 


DAVID  THE  PSALMIST  lOI 

came  after  I's.  Ixxii.,  a  conjecture  now  pretty  well 
established.  On  this  arrangement  book  i.  would  con- 
sist almost  wholly  of  Psalms  ascribed  to  David,  i.- 
xli. ;  book  ii.  is  a  second  Davidic  anthology,  li.-lxxxi, 
— comprising  first,  li. -ixxii.,  almost  all  *'  royal "  ;  next, 
xlii.-xlix.,  a  group  of  Korahite  Psalms  ;  third,  1.,  Ixxiii.- 
Ixxxiii.,  a  group  of  Asaph  Psalms ;  to  these  Ixxxiv.- 
Ixxxix.  form  a  sort  of  appendix  by  a  different  hand. 
The  third  collection,  liturgical  in  the  main,  would  be 
Ps.  xc.-cl.  This  general  view  appears  worthy  of  ac- 
ceptance.^ 

The  Davidic  Elements. — That  David,  wrote  all  the 
Psalms,  though  believed  by  St.  Augustine,  St.  Ambrose, 
and  even  by  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  not  to  speak  of 
others  in  the  Patristic  age,  does  not  seem  a  very  early 
Jewish  opinion.  In  200  A.D.  it  was  not  settled  for  the 
Mishnah.  Origen,  Hilary,  Eusebius,  Athanasius,  Jerome, 
deny  it.  Accordingly,  the  Fathers  of  Ti'cnt  enumer- 
ate among  Books  of  Holy  Scripture  not  "  the  Psalms 
of  David  "  but  "  Psalterium  Davidicum  ".  "  Scarcely  any 
one  now  holds  that  view,"  says  Cornel)-,  a  stickler  for 
tradition,  but  acquainted  with  all  the  literature  bear- 
ing on  his  subject.-'  An  eminent  Oxford  scholar,  Prof. 
Margoliouth,  still  maintains  it.  Recent  critics  out- 
side the  Church  have  generally  gone  to  the  opposite 
extreme,  and  will  not  allow  David  to  be  the  author  of 
a  single  Psalm.  The  tendency  is  to  bring  them  down 
below  the  Exile,  as  near  the  limit  set  by  Ecclus.  (130 
B.C.)  or  by  translation  of  LXX,  as  possible.  Books 
iv.-v.  would  be  late  in  the  Greek  period.  The  first 
(alleged)  Davidic  collection  might  belong  to  P>,ra- 
Nehemiah  ;  the  second  to  some  day  of  uprising  against 
the  Persians  long  afterwards  (persecution  of  Ochus?). 
Whether  any  Psalms  are  Maccabean  is  disputed  among 
moderns  ;  and,  on  the  \vhole,  difficulties  have  been  more 


^Ewald,  Poets  O.  T.,  i.  249;  Driver,  Introd.  Lit.  O.  T.,  350. 
*  Ut  supra,  99-100,  where  see  references. 


102  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

or  less  candidly  acknowledged  in  the  supposition.^     A 
few  Catholic  writers  hold  by  it.- 

Quotation  therefore  of  "  David  "  by  name  in  the  New 
Testament  decides  nothing  on  this  point,  unless  we 
would  maintain  that  St.  Jude's  reference  to  the  Book 
of  Enoch  obliges  us  to  a  belief  in  the  patriarch's  writ- 
ings— which  no  one  affirms  (Jude  14).  It  is  likewise 
uncertain  what  exactly  the  Hebrew  phrase  means  which 
we  translate  by  "  a  Psalm  of  David ".  Does  it  mean 
composed  by  David,  or  dealing  with  David,  or  even 
"  in  the  collection  of  David  "  ?  And  what  authority 
have  the  inscriptions  prefixed  to  Psalms  ?  The  Hebrew 
gives  seventy-three  to  the  royal  singer ;  the  LXX. 
allows  him  eighty-four ;  the  Vulgate  eighty-five.  We 
are  ignorant  when  these  titles  came  into  existence  and 
by  whom  they  were  added  to  the  text.  It  is  not  easy 
to  suppose  them  original,  for  they  often  contravene  or 
do  not  harmonise  with  what  we  read  in  the  Psalms 
which  they  have  been  set  to  illustrate.^  And  the  ob- 
scurity and  confusion  so  marked  in  their  present  condi- 
tion, argue  that  no  such  editorial  care  has  attended  on 
them  as  would  be  their  due  if  the  Synagogue  thought 
them  inspired.  Musical  directions,  the  meaning  of 
which  is  not  at  all  clear,  make  them  up  for  the  most 
part ;  these  would  have  come  down  from  the  second 
Temple,  scarcely  from  the  days  of  Solomon,  to  judge 
by  certain  alterations  in  style  and  instruments  or  in  the 
choir  itself,  according  to  critics."^  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin 
thought  they  were  added  by  a  later  hand.  It  is  plaus- 
ible to  maintain  that  inscriptions  to  which  the  Massorah, 
LXX.  and  Vulgate  bear  witness  cannot  be  rejected. 
But  to  look  on  them,  under  all  the  circumstances,  as 
portions  of  Scripture  would  be  to  strain  the  Tridentine 
decrees.^ 

^E.  Bi.,  3926-3934,  3937.         -Patrizi,  Cento  Salmi,  235. 
^  Driver,  Introd.,  352,  various  instances. 
*E.  Bi.,  3934,  and  on  "  Music,"  3225-41. 

*  For  view  upholding  inspiration_of  titles,^  see  Corjiely,  ut  supra,  84- 
89;  Vigouroux,  M.  B.,  iiT  329. 


GROUNDS  FON  COMMON  VIEW  103 

Yet  so  ancient  and  [jarticular  a  reference  of  over 
seventy  Psalms  to  David  is  not  a  tradition  to  be  put  on 
one  side.  Neither  can  it  mean  simply  "collected  by 
David,"  nor  is  the  king's  name  a  personification  of  the 
"  lay  "  poets  who  first  chanted  these  hymns.  The  Syna- 
gogue and  the  nation  looked  back  to  the  son  of  Jesse  as 
having  founded  the  Temple-service,  taught  the  singers, 
and  composed  for  their  recitation.  Me  was  "pleasant 
in  the  psalms  of  Israel  "  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  i),  he  had  "  made 
instruments  of  music  "  for  the  Levites  "  to  give  thanks 
unto  the  Lord  "  (2  Chron.  vii.  G),  and  "  Hezckiah  the  king 
and  the  princes  commanded  the  Levites  to  sing  praises 
unto  the  Lord  with  the  words  of  David  and  of  Asaph 
the  seer"  (2  Chron.  xxix.  30).  If  it  be  rejoined  that  the 
Psalm  attributed  to  him  in  2  Sam.  xxii.,  which  is  our 
xviii.  in  Hebrew,  has  been  inserted  later,  as  well  as  Ps. 
cv.,  cvi.  in  i  Chron.  xvi.,  this  would  surely  be  an  argu- 
ment for  the  belief  in  his  association  with  religious 
poetr}',  rather  than  the  op}X)site. 

Objections  Answered. — The  lament  over  Saul  and 
Jonathan  in  2  Sam.  i.  19  is  there  said  to  have  been 
taken  from  the  Book  of  Jashar.  it  is  undoubtedly  old 
in  form  and  feeling,  worthy  of  its  chivalrous  author, 
and  an  example  of  the  meditative  mood  which  distin- 
guishes many  of  the  Psalms  given  to  him  in  our  volume. 
A  difficult}-  has  been  raised  in  view  of  the  deep  spiritual 
wisdom  which  they  exhibit,  as  if  the  age  of  David 
were  too  little  conversant  with  inward  religion  for  such 
musings.  But  why  should  that  be?  Very  ancient 
Babylonian  hymns  teach  us  that  spiritual  ideas  were 
not  unknown  to  the  Semites  in  periods  far  remote. 
The  author  now  called  the  Jahwist,  who  reproduces 
while  cleansing  from  heathen  defilements  Accadian- 
Assyrianjvorld-stories,  may  be  assigned  to  a  lower  tirne~ 
than  David,  but  not  his  materials,  and  his  way  of 
regarding  life  is  pensive  and  prayerful.  Since  extreme 
critics  do  not  deny  that  "early  Israelitish  hymns"  must 
"have  influenced  the  form,  if  not  the  ideas,  of  the  later 


I04  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Psalms,"  and  since  we  are  now  in  presence  of  documents 
more  primitive  by  a  thousand  years  than  David's  king- 
dom, where  lies  the  necessity  of  post-dating  soliloquies 
that  in  some  degree  can  be  matched  from  of  old  ? 
Hymns  do,  indeed,  lend  themselves  to  a  modernising 
process ;  nothing  more  natural  than  additions  to  them, 
second  touches,  adaptations.  But  granting  all  this,  if 
we  say  of  the  Korahite  and  Asaphic  Psalms  with 
Robertson  Smith,  "  their  contents  give  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  they  really  were  collected  by  or  for  these 
two  guilds,"  the  ascription  to  David  of  others  would 
seem  quite  as  probable.^  Not,  of  course,  that  all  the 
pieces  now  so  entitled  need  be  reckoned  Davidic  in 
their  actual  state.  The  experiences  of  many  men,  of 
different  ages,  appear  to  be  reflected  in  them.  It  will 
satisfy  the  evidence  which  meets  us  in  the  Bible  text  if 
we  leave  a  large  part,  however  indefinite,  of  the  original 
Psalter  to  one  who,  in  setting  up  at  Jerusalem  throne 
and  tabernacle,  must  have  contemplated  a  central  sanc- 
tuary.- In  this  opinion  there  is  no  unreasonable  de- 
mand on  our  faith ;  whereas  to  imagine  a  name  thrust 
into  the  liturgy,  nay,  made  one  of  the  principal  there, 
which  never  had  any  relation  to  it,  would  require  grounds 
much  more  solid  than  have  been  alleged. 

Great  difficulties  await  us  in  determining  what  special 
Psalms  David  wrote.  Those  who  assign  to  him  the 
seventy-three  of  the  Hebrew  allow  that  some  verses 
have  been  added  during  the  Exile.^  Thus  we  are  led 
into  thickets  of  conjecture  too  often  without  issue. 
Theodoret  reminds  us,  "  What  does  it  matter  if  some 
be  of  this  man  or  some  of  that  man,  since  it  is  certain 
that  all  were  written  by  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ".* 
Peculiarities  are  noted  which  may  help  us  to  fix  the 
various  periods.  St.  Augustine,  who  thought  David 
the  sole  author,  but  who  could  not  overlook  the  minute 
references  to  the  Exile  and  Captivity,  invokes  the  pro- 

» W.  R.  Smith,  E.  Bi.,  3927.  2  j  chron.  xvi. 

^'Cornely  (Patrizi),  ut  supra,  105.  *  Migne,  P.  G.,  80,  861. 


USE  OF  DIVINE  NAMES  105 

phetic  spirit.  To  which  Comely  answers,  "  It  is  not  a 
question  of  what  was  possible,  but  of  what  happened, 
.  .  .  Without  a  sure  foundation  miracles  are  not  to  be 
multiplied,"  and  he  appeals  to  the  diversity  of  style, 
as  a  modern  critic  would.'  The  Psalms  which  appear 
to  be  more  ancient  are,  in  general,  strikingly  bold  and 
individual,  often  difficult  to  follow,  and  rugged  or  mag- 
nificent in  language  ;  the  newer  tend  to  become  simply 
"  songs  of  praise  "  and  congregational,  with  many  refer- 
ences to  accompaniment  by  musicians.  This  distinction 
between  the  solitary  spirit  and  the  Kahal,  or  assembly,^ 
—between  the  "  I  "  Psalms  and  the  "  We  '^  T^saTms — 
cannot  be  overlooked.  It  admits,  however,  of  endless 
degrees.  Frequently,  too,  the  speaker  puts  us  in  mind 
of  the  tragic  choregus  on  the  Athenian  stage,  and  re- 
presents the  whole  people  (Ps.  Ixvi.). 

Use  of  Divine  Names. — Another  problem  is  the 
varying  use  of  Divine  Names.  Before  the  P2xile  many 
proper  names  are"  moulded  on  "Jahweh"  (often  con- 
tracted), which  indicates  that  Israel  did  not  consider 
it  as  a  forbidden  word.  In  after  times  it  was  never 
spoken,  and  where  it  appears  in  the  text  Adonai  or 
Elohim  was  recited.  Hence  by  degrees  it  passed  out 
of  writing  also.  Now  in  book  i.  Jahweh  occurs  272 
times,  Elohim  as  an  absolute  fifteen  times  only ;  in 
book  ii.  J.  is  found  thirty  times,  E.  164;  in  book  iii. 
J.  occurs  thirteen  times,  E.  thirty-six,  in  P.s.  Ixxiii.- 
Ixxxiii. ;  but  in  Ixxxiv. -Ixxxix.  J.  is  read  thirty-one 
times,  E.  only  seven  ;  book  iv.  has  J.  all  through ;  and 
so  book  v.  with  a  few  exceptions.  An  easier  way  of 
stating  the  difference  is  that  in  the  main  Ps.  xlii.-lxxxiii. 
avoid  the  most  sacred  name,  which  is  Jahweh.  In  like 
manner  Chronicles  prefers  E.  to  J.  and  Ecclesiastes  never 
writes  J.  at  all.  This  would  bring  down  the  revision  to 
the  Greek  period.  But  how  little  can  we  rely  upon  our 
fragmentary  premisses  and  the  conclusions  they  suggest ! 

*  Comely,  iw  Psahnos.,  ut  supra,  101-2. 


Io6  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

A  singular  theoiy  has  of  late  connected  many  Psalms 
with  Israelite  oppression  under  North  Arabian  invaders, 
called  "Edom"  and  "Jerahmeel,"  from  600  B.C.  on- 
wards.^ This  interpretation  requires  large,  not  to  say 
hazardous,  amendments  of  the  text,  and  is  but  one 
chapter  in  a  criticism  of  the  most  revolutionary  character 
applied  to  the  Old  Testament  throughout.  Since  we 
cannot  yield  to  it  elsewhere,  all  we  have  now  to  observe 
may  be  summed  up  in  the  Dantean  words,  "  Look  and 
pass  on".  Neither  Hebrew  nor  Christian  tradition 
knows  anything  of  such  a  view.  Allusions  to  Edom 
are  not  lacking  in  the  Psalms  ;  but  the  general  substitu- 
tion of  North  Arabians  for  Assyrians  or  Babylonians  can 
as  little  be  granted  by  orthodox  opinion,  as  the  never- 
ending  confusion  between  Musri  and  Mizraim  to  which 
this  novel  doctrine  appeals,  against  the  Massoretic  text 
and  the  LXX.,  wherever  Egypt  is  concerned.'-^ 

The  Five  "Books  of  Solomon". — As  Hebrew 
psalmody  was  attributed  to  David  by  the  Fathers,  in 
like  manner  they  ascribed  to  Solomon  Hebrew  wisdom. 
His  "  five  books,"  Prov.,  Eccles.,  Song,  Wisdom,  Ecclus., 
found  regular  mention  not  only  in  Councils  (Hippo, 
393  ;  Carthage,  397,  at  which  St.  Augustine  was  present) 
but  in  the  Decretals  of  Innocent  I.  and  Gelasius.  This 
nomenclature  the  Middle  Ages  adopted.  St.  Jerome 
restricts  the  author,  as  Hebrews  have  always  done,  to 
three  volumes.  No  Catholic  is  required  to  suppose  the 
Greek  Book  of  Wisdom  to  be  the  composition,  though 
written  in  the  person,  of  Solomon.  Ecclus.  distinctly 
states  its  own  origin  from  Jesus  Ben  Sira.  Omitting 
these  deutero-canonical  works,  we  find  no  serious  con- 
troversy implicating  dogma,  which  would  affect  the 
authorship  of  Proverbs.  The  opening  verse,  which  is 
editorial,  announces,  "  The  proverbs  of  Solomon,  the  son 

1  For  this  name  Jerahmeel  see  i  Sam.  xxvii.  lo ;  i  Chron.  ii.  25-33. 
For  the  application  of  it,  Cheyne,  E.  Bi.,  3943-3957- 

2  For  metrical  structure  of  Psalms,  Lowth,  De  Poesi  Hebr. ;  Zenner 
in  Zeitsch.f.  K.  Theologie,  Innsbruck. 


SOLOMON'S  AUTHORSHIP  I07 

of  David,  King  of  Israel".  Yet  the  son  of  David  did 
not  collect  them  all;  for  (i)  in  xxv.  i  we  read,  "These 
also  are  proverbs  of  Solomon  which  the  men  of  Heze- 
kiali,  King  of  Judah,  copied  out,"  and  (2)  in  xxx.  and 
xxxi.  we  are  confronted  with  "the  words  of  Agur  "  and 
those  of  "  Lemuel,  King  of  Massa  ".  Hence,  for  ortho- 
dox critics,  no  argument  decisive  of  authorship  can  be 
gained  from  a  Scripture  heading  thus  presented.  It 
need  not  be  commensurate  with  the  whole  volume 
which  it  introduces.  Additions  by  later  scribes  are 
not  impossible.  And  an  entire  book  (Wisdom)  may, 
without  fraud  or  imposture,  be  published  in  the  char- 
acter of  one  who  did  not  actually  compose  it.^ 

The  Book  of  Proverbs. — In  Proverbs  {^MisJilei-She- 
lomoh)  we  reckon  eight  parts,  mostly  with  introductions 
or  titles — i.-ix.,  the  Praise  of  Wisdom  ;  x.-xxii.  16,  pro- 
verbial sayings  in  a  strictly  poetical  form  ascribed  to 
Solomon  ;  xxii.  17-xxiv.  22,  "  words  of  the  wise  "  ;  xxv.- 
xxix.,  a  second  collection  by  Hezekiah  from  Solo- 
mon ;  xxx.,  the  Agur-section  ;  xxxi.  1-9,  the  Lemuel  sec- 
tion ;  xxxi.  10-31,  the  description  of  a  virtuous  woman, 
in  acrostic  verses.  The  arrangement  was  evidently 
gradual ;  its  date  is  uncertain.  Affinities  with  Deuter- 
onomy and  the  Prophets  may  surely  be  allowed.  If 
we  mention  600  B.C.  as  a  memorial  number  we  lay  no 
stress  upon  it. 

Some  Talmudic  worthies  appear  to  have  doubted 
the  inspiration  of  Proverbs,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia 
denied  to  it  the  grace  of  prophecy  and  called  its  teach- 
ing merely  prudential,  for  which  he  was  condemned  in 
the  P'ifth  General  Council,  the  Second  of  Constantinople. 
Spinoza  renewed  his  opinion,  and  Le  Clerc  also  in  strong 
terms."-^  But  as  the  Church  does  not  identify  inspira- 
tion with  revelation,  this  argument,  even  if  it  were  valid, 
proves  nothing  against  the  canonical  dignity  of  any 
Scripture.     And  Spinoza  himself  held   that  "  prophecy 

'Comely,  Introd.  Gen.,  124;  Introd.  Spec,  141,  223-25. 

^  Tract.  Theol.-Polit.,  ii.  32;  Le  Clerc,  Lettres  $iir  le  V.  T.,  12. 


I08  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

never  added  to  the  learning  of  the  Prophets  but  left 
them  in  their  preconceived  opinions".  The  ancient 
"wise  men"  took  for  granted  the  religion  of  Israel, 
but,  while  they  acknowledged  all  virtues  to  be  God's 
gift  (Prov.  viii.),  they  endeavoured  to  establish  the 
Moral  Law  upon  good  sense  and  experience.  Those 
who  have  guided  themselves  by  the  spirit  of  this  wis- 
dom know  it  to  be  profitable  for  character  as  for  life. 
That  men  are  rewarded  here  below  according  to  their 
works  is  its  leading  principle  and  represents  one  view 
of  the  Divine  Government.^ 

Ecclesiastes  or  Koheleth. — The"  king  in  Jerusalem  " 
may  have  collected  more  sayings  than  he  wrote.  But, 
supposing  that  in  Proverbs  we  make  acquaintance  with 
Solomon's  mind  and  manner  of  speech, — the  Hebrew 
shows  a  concentrated  strength,  energy  and  shrewdness 
which  adorn  its  golden  period, — how  shall  we  judge  con- 
cerning Ecclesiastes?  In  style  and  scope  the  "  Preacher  " 
has  been  matter  of  discussion  from  an  early  date.  Its 
very  title  is  not  plain.  We  translate  "Koheleth" — 
reading  the  letters  thus — with  St.  Jerome  as  "  Concion- 
ator,"  or  in  the  Revised  Version,  "the  great  orator". 
He  is  meant,  beyond  question,  for  Solomon.  And  our 
difficulties  begin  at  once.  Grotius  was  the  first  to  raise 
the  problem  of  authorship.  No  modern  critic  of  dis- 
tinction outside  the  Church  seems  to  grant  that  Solomon 
could  have  written  Ecclesiastes.  Many  Catholic  writers 
look  upon  it  as  being  in  the  same  case  with  Wisdom — 
a  soliloquy  or  parable  the  origin  of  which  is  not  known. 
Antiquity  was  exercised  about  the  ethical  drift  (appar- 
ently Epicurean)  or  the  "  false  view  of  life  "  which  many 
found  in  Koheleth,  and  which  led  to  disputes  before  it 
was  fully  allowed  by  the  Palestinian  Jews.  In  the  New 
Testament  the  book  is  not  mentioned. 

Literary  questions  have  arisen  only  in  late  times. 
But  they  are  formidable.     In  point  of  language  Eccles. 

^  Driver,  Introd.  Lit.  O.  T.,  369-74. 


PROBLEM  OF  KOHELETH  IO9 

belongs  to  the  post-exilic  Hebrew.  It  resembles  the 
large  work  Ezra  -  Chronicles,  the  fragments  of  Ben 
Sira,  and  the  Mishnah.  Its  words  and  idioms  have 
a  kinshiii  with  Aramaic;  the  syntax  is  decadent;  the 
construction  by  no  means  classical.  How  reconcile 
these  peculiarities  with  an  age  like  Solomon's?  The 
difficulty  is  so  great  that  some  have  imagined  the  royal 
preacher  as  adojjting  a  "  popular "  dialect  by  way  of 
coming  down  to  the  level  of  his  audience.^  This  far- 
fetched expedient  proves,  at  any  rate,  that  the  style 
of  Koheleth  is  almost  unique  and  is  certainly  not 
ancient. 

If,  however,  you  admit  an  adapted  Solomon  to  explain 
the  language,  why  not  a  figurative  one  to  get  rid  of  the 
inconcrruities  in  thought  and  sentiment  which  have  been 
pointed  out  ?  For  the  author,  "  if  he  were  a  prosperous 
king,  would  hardly  speak  as  he  does  of  government, 
with  its  corruption  and  injustice";  nor  could  he  despaii 
of  the  nation,  or  write  habitually  in  the  subject's,  not 
the  monarch's  vein.  He  describes  a  "  period  of  poli- 
tical servitude,  destitute  of  patriotism  or  enthusiasm  ". 
Hence,  the  Preacher  must  have  lived  when  the  Jews 
had  lost  their  independence  and  Judah  was  a  province 
of  the  Persian  or  the  Greek  empire.  His  place  in  the 
Hebrew  Canon,  after  Lamentations,  testifies  to  the  late 
recognition,  even  thus  not  secure,  which  he  met  with 
from  the  Synagogue.  And  the  Ta,rgum,  in  its  com- 
ments^  dwells  much  on  a  future  life  and  judgment  to 
cortie.  As  St.  Augustine  observes,  "  the  whole  book  is 
intended  for  nothing  else  than  that  we  should  yearn 
after  the  life  which  has  no  vanity  under  the  sun".^ 
Whether  you  choose  a  date  from  Persian  times  before 
Alexander  (350)  or  under  the  Seleucids  (300-200),  no 
one  doubts  that  the  language  is  quite  foreign  to  Hebrew 
at  its  best.  In  any  view,  the  figurative  ascription  to 
Israel's  wisest  king  is  not  a  "  pious  fraud  "  but  a  literary 

*  Comely,  Introd.  Spec,  ii.  173,  maintains  this  hypothesis. 
^De  Civ.  Dei,  xx.  3. 


no  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

form.     As  regards  the  ethical  difficulties,  we  will  touch 
on  them  in  another  section.^ 

The  Song  of  Songs. — Canticles,  or  the  Song  of  Songs 
(z'.e.  the  most  excellent  of  poems),  has  afforded  to  critics 
and  commentators  a  field  for  inexhaustible  theorising. 
Its  position  among  the  Ketubim  suggests  either  a  late 
period  or  difficulties  in  admitting  it  to  the  Canon. 
These  were  undoubtedly  raised,  as  we  learn  from  the 
high-flown  judgment  in  its  favour  of  Rabbi  Akiba. 
Jewish  tradition,  represented  by  the  Targum  and  Mid- 
rash  Rabbah,  denied  that  it  was  a  secular  poem,  and 
construed  allegorically  the  relations  of  Solomon  and  the 
Bride  as  the  love  of  Jahweh  towards  Israel.  This  inter- 
pretation, accepted  by  Origen,  but  applied  to  Christ  and 
the  Church  (or  the  (individual  soul),  became  universal  in 
the  Middle  Ages,  and  we  owe  to  it  St.  Bernard's  eighty- 
six  sermons  on  the  Canticles.  St.  Jerome  writes  to 
Laeta  (Ep.  107),  "  let  her  read  the  Canticles  last  of  all,  for 
fear  that  if  she  read  them  first,  not  understanding  the 
spiritual  sense,  she  should  take  harm".  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  interpreted  the  Song  literally,  "and  then," 
says  Newman,  "  it  was  but  an  easy  or  rather  a  neces- 
sary step  to  exclude  the  book  from  the  Canon  ".'^  But 
orthodox  writers  upheld  the  mystical  view,  with  or 
without  a  background  of  history ;  and  Bossuet  hinted 
that  the  Song  was  adapted  for  use  on  the  seven  days 
of  the  marriage  festival.  Unless  a  moral  or  prophetic 
meaning  could  be  assigned  to  the  work,  it  was  evidently 
not  entitled  to  a  place  among  sacred  writings. 

Views  of  Ewald  and  Moderns. — The  ethical  interest 
and  the  unity  of  Canticles  were  discovered  by  Ewald 
(1826)  in  reading  it  as  a  drama  with  three  principal 
actors,  Abishag  the  Shulammite  (i  Kings  i.  3;  ii,  21), 
her  mstic   betrothed,  and    Solomon    his   kingly  rival. 

1  Highly  conservative  opinions  in  Cornel}',  tit  supra,  166-83. 
Modern  views,  Spinoza,  ut  supra,  165;  E.  Bi.,  1155-1163  ;  Driver, 
Introd.  Lit.  O.  T.,  441-49.  For  text,  Ginsburg,  and  especially  Bickell, 
Der  Predigcr.     Extreme  views  in  Gratz.  Renan,  Cheyne. 

^Development,  2S5. 


CANTICLES  ril 

This  dramatic  idea  found  many  advocates  and  is  preva- 
lent outside  the  Church  ;  but  serious  objections  remain, 
especially  that  Semites  have  no  turn  for  real  drama. 
Hence  the  festal  interpretation  connected  with  Lowth 
and  Rossuet  is  at  j^resent  winning  suffrages.  No  parti- 
cular story  would  in  this  case  underlie  the  seven  parts, 
each  containing  what  is  termed  in  Arabic  a  was/  or 
"  praise  of  beauty " ;  names  like  the  Shulammite  and 
Solomon  would  be  merely  symbols  ;  and  the  whole  an 
epithalamium  (to  use  Origen's  word)  such  as  peasants 
chant  still  in  the  Lebanon.  Since  it  celebrates  true 
affection  and  pure  wedded  love,  there  is  no  reason  why 
such  a  poem  should  not  be  inspired  and  susceptible  of 
a  religious  application,  like  other  parables  taken  from 
life.  Its  details  would  be  the  vehicle  of  diviner  mean- 
ings, and  not  literal  because  intended  as  a  prophetic 
allegory.  In  this  verdict  Church  and  Synagogue  would 
have  agreed  from  the  beginning. 

To  those  learned  men,  such  as  Gesenius,  who  con- 
sidered the  Song  as  written  in  a  late  Hebrew, — various 
examples  are  quoted, — the  Salomonic  authorship  seemed 
incredible.  But  others,  equally  learned  (Sayce  in  par- 
ticular), do  not  perceive  the  lateness ;  they  affirm  that 
language  and  allusions  would  suit  very  well  with 
Solomon.  Cheyne  thinks  "we  can  now  show  that  this 
anthology  of  songs  is  post-exilic,"  perhaps  belonging 
to  "the  early  and  fortunate  reigns  of  the  Ptolemies". 
Internal  difficulties  are  left  if  we  hold  to  Solomon's 
association  as  an  author,  in  any  period  of  his  reign,  with 
a  mystical  or  dramatic  poem  in  which  his  part  is  either 
not  congruous  or  far  from  enviable.  The  true  and  ten- 
der conception  of  mairiage  between  one  man  and  one 
maiden  here  set  forth  can  hardly,  it  is  said,  be  attributed 
to  a  polygamous  king.  In  the  New  Testament  no 
mention  occurs  of  Canticles.^ 

'  Cornely,  Introil.  Spec,  ii.  1S4-99.  Ewald's  view  in  Driver,  Introd. 
Lit.  O.  T.,  413-1S  ;  well  given  in  Hamburger,  Rcal-Encyc.  des  Judcn- 
thunts,  717  ;  and  Hastings,  D.  B.,  iv.  591-97  ;  text  in  Bickell,  Poems 
O.  T.  Metrically  Rendered ;  and  in  Ginsburg.     See  E.  Bi.,  681-95. 


112  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Poem  or  Parable  of  Job  ? — Job,  which  on  any  sup- 
position, whether  history  or  parable,  is  a  religious  poem 
unsurpassed  in  literature,  has  no  author's  name  and  no 
date.  Its  place  in  the  Canon  varies.  Jii  the  Talmud 
{Baba  Bathra,  15  a)  R.  Samuel  bar  Nachman  opines 
that  "  Job  never  existed""  ;  most  of  the  Rabbis  took  an 
opposite  view,  which  is  followed  by  St.  Augustine,  St. 
Thomas  Aquinas,  and  Catholics  generally.  Innocent 
I.  and  Gelasius  appear  to  reckon  the  book  among  his- 
tories. Yet  all  orthodox  writers  grant  that  in  treatment 
as  in  style  Job  is  a  "  poetic  amplification,"  and  that  the 
prologue  in  Heaven  cannot  be  taken  to  the  letter, 
though  much  disagreement  is  found  among  commen- 
tators when  they  attempt  to  explain  it.  Symbolic 
visions  are,  of  course,  frequent  in  Scripture.  St.  Thomas 
lays  down  a  principle  which  may  be  applied  elsewhere, 
"  the  word  was  not  given  by  a  sound  from  without  but 
inspired  from  within  "}  Short  parables  in  Holy  Writ 
not  being  real  narratives,  it  is  asked  why  long  ones 
should  have  a  better  claim  to  be  so  considered.  But 
the  existence  of  Job  is  argued  from  Ezekiel  xiv.  14; 
Ecclus.  xlix.  9,  Hebrew  text;  Tobit  ii.  12,  15  ;  James 
V.  1 1.  His  name,  "  a  legacy  from  antiquity,"  has  been 
traced  to  North  Palestine  and  Babylon  as  well  as  the 
Hauran.  "  It  would  be  advisable,"  says  Loisy,  "  to 
admit  that  the  historical  truth  of  Job  is  not  absolutely 
guaranteed  by  tradition."  ^ 

It  is  now  commonly  admitted  that  the  speeches  of 
Elihu  (xxxii.-xxxvii.)  are  an  addition,  not  by  the 
original  author.  Insertions  at  various  other  places  in 
Job's  own  argument  have  been  noted,  which  make  the 
reading  difficult ;  chapters  xxvii.  7-23  and  xxviii.  are 
full  of  perplexities  to  students.  Elihu  finds  no  men- 
tion in  Prologue  or  Epilogue,  and  his  discourses  have  a 
marked  style,  more  flowing  and  roundabout  than  the 
rest  of  the  poem.     His  doctrine,  also,  proceeds  from  a 

*  Quesst.  Disput.  dc  Prophetia,  xii. 

2  Comely,  ii,  Oi,  66 ;  Cheyne  in  E.  Bi.,  2464  ;  Loisy,  yob,  49. 


STYLE  AND  DATE  OF  JOB  1 13 

different  point  of  view.  If  we  call  the  principal  writer 
a  poet,  we  may  term  the  creator  of  Elihu  a  moralist — 
both  certainly  in.s{)ired.^ 

Narratives  and  Colloquies. — There  are  three  cycles 
of  colloquies ;  then  comes  the  Elihu  section  ;  lastly, 
the  speeches  of  Jahweh  (xxxviii.-xlii.  6).  Efforts  have 
been  made  to  show  that  the  prose-narratives  are  by  a 
writer  for  whose  "  colloquies  "  our  present  (much  more 
sublime)  text  was  substituted  ;  but  we  feel  no  tempta- 
tion to  commit  ourselves  on  these  speculative  flii^hts. 
That  the  text  of  Job  is  greatly  in  need  of  critical  help 
cannot  be  doubted.  Perhaps  it  has  an  Edomite  colour- 
ing, which  would  account  for  many  variations.  Ascribed 
in  Hebrew  tradition  to  Moses,  but  vague  alike  in  its 
chronology  and  geography,  the  volume  has  been  brought 
down  to  the  age  of  Solomon  or  Hezekiah,  even  as  low 
as  500  B.C.  Against  any  post-exilic  reference  the 
parallel  to  Job  in  Jeremiah  xx.  14-18,  considered  to  be 
an  imitation,  is  alleged.  Nothing  hinders  us  from  hold- 
ing that  the  poet  was  contemporary  with  Amos,  except 
certain  approximations  to  2  Isaiah  (Job  vii.  i  ,  ix.  8 ; 
xii.  17;  XV.  35).  But  760  B.C.  is  a  veiy  high  date. 
Elihu  would  perhaps  belong  to  the  Persian  era.^  In 
Job  altogether,  "  the  thoughts  expressed  are  thoroughly 
Hebraic,  and  the  entire  work  is  manifestly  a  genuine 
product  of  the  religion  of  Israel  ".^ 

Ruth  Again. — In  Massoretic  Bibles  the  Song  of 
Songs  follows  Job,  and  is  itself  followed  by  Ruth,  which 
however  stands  first  of  the  Hagiographa  in  Spanish 
MSS.,  and  deserves  to  be  held  up  as  a  perfect  example 
of  the  Haggadah,  or  moralising  narrative,  among  Israel- 
ites. It  is  thus  contrasted  with  the  HalachaJi^  which, 
as  meaning  the  path  ("  This  is  the  way,  walk  ye  in  it "), 


'  Loisy,  Joh,  28-36.         ^  Loisy,  41-43. 

^Driver,  Introd.  Lit.  O.  T.,  408.  Text  especially  handled  by 
Bickell,  Carmina  V.  T.,  and  transl.  from  the  Gieck  version  of  Job, 
Eng.  by  Dillon.  See  also  Delitzsch,  Int.  to  Job,  sec.  10.  For 
older  views,  Cornely,  ii.  47-60.      For  French  transl.,  Loisy,  ut  supra. 

8 


114  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

simply  laid  down  the  law  of  duty.  When  was  the  idyl 
composed  ?  Linguistic  peculiarities,  Aramaisms,  and 
even  the  antiquarian  tone,  have  led  moderns,  Ewald, 
etc.,  to  give  it  an  exilic  origin.  The  LXX.  make  it  an 
appendix  to  Judges,  but  we  do  not  observe  the  same 
notes  of  "  ancient  rust "  which  cling  to  that  fierce  and 
powerful  volume.  Ruth  exhibits  the  domestic  tender- 
ness and  attachment  to  family  life  which  are  marked 
features  in  Jewish  writings  after  the  Exile.  But,  even 
if  late  in  point  of  composition,  the  basis  of  the  narrative 
may  well  be  historical.  Nor  is  the  literary  argument 
all  on  one  side,  for  Ruth  in  choice  of  words  and  fresh- 
ness of  painting  takes  us  back  to  a  noble  sort  of  Hebrew. 
We  cannot,  then,  pronounce  definitely  one  way  or  the 
other.  That  David  was  connected  with  Moab,  as  the 
pedigree  at  the  end  makes  out,  seems  to  be  indicated 
I  Sam.  xxii.  3.  No  trace  of  Deuteronomic  influence  in 
the  story  compels  us  to  bring  it  below  621  B.C.  If  a 
view  be  imperative,  we  might  suppose  an  earlier  tale 
revised,  in  which  case  old  and  new  linguistic  forms 
would  meet  together.^ 

On  Lamentations  we  have  spoken  in  the  sequel  to 
Jeremiah. 

The  Story  of  Esther. — The  Book  of  Esther  comes 
after  Koheleth  among  the  "  Festal  Rolls,"  and  is  emi- 
nently adapted  to  its  purpose  of  being  read  on  the  days 
of  Purim,  a  celebration  which  it  explains  from  Persian 
history.  The  protocanonical  (Hebrew)  chapters,  i.-x.  3, 
do  not  mention  the  name  of  God  or  make  reference  to 
prayer;  the  deutero-canonical  (Greek  only),  x.  4-xvi. 
24,  add  visions  and  supplications  which  strongly  re- 
mind us  of  Daniel,  Judith,  and  Tobit.  Critics  are 
unanimous  in  identifying  Ahasuerus  with  Xerxes,  and 
the  period  repre.sented  is  later  than  the  expedition 
against  the  Greeks,  We  know  nothing  of  the  author 
whose  date  may  be  300-290  B.C.     Grave  objections  to 

^  Gigot,  spec.  Itiirod.,  242-49 ;  Vigouroux,  M.  B.,  ii.  no.  461 ;  Keil, 
Konig,  Driver,  in  loco  ;  E.  BL,  4166-69. 


ESTHER  1 1  5 

the  historical  accuracy  of  Esther  have  been  drawn  from 
the  names,  customs,  language,  and  course  of  the  events, 
Esther  is  clearly  Istar,  Mordccai  is  Marduka,  "  devoted 
to  Marduk";  how  came  pious  Israelites  to  bear  the 
designation  of  a  Babylonian  god  and  goddess  ?  Other 
instances  do,  indeed,  occur  on  contract  tablets.^  The 
Persian  usages  also  create  a  difficulty,  for  the  king 
could  take  a  wife  only  from  seven  families  (according  to 
Herodotus,  iii.  84),  and  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that 
Amestris,  the  consort  of  Xerxes  at  the  date  alleged, 
was  the  same  as  Esther.  Improbabilities,  it  is  said, 
hansr  round  the  design  of  Haman  not  less  than  the 
counterplot  by  which  it  was  defeated.  Would  Ahasue- 
rus  have  deliberately  arranged  for  a  civil  war  among 
his  subjects  ?  There  is,  besides,  the  curious  variant  on 
this  whole  stoiy  in  Tobit  xiv.  10,  where  Mordecai  dis- 
appears and  his  place  is  taken  by  Achiacharus  the  cup- 
bearer of  Esarhaddon,  while  "  Aman  went  down  into 
darkness  "  (in  LXX.,  not  in  Jerome's  Vulgate).  From 
all  this  many  critics  conclude  that  Esther  is  a  romance. 
Comparison  is  made  with  legends  reported  by  Ktesias 
which  in  character  it  resembles ;  and  his  "  parchment 
archives  "  remind  us  of  the  "  chronicles  "  and  "  records  " 
of  the  "  Kinofs  of  Media  and  Persia"  to  which  our  book 
refers  more  than  once.  Moderate  writers,  Oettli,  Driver, 
etc.,  are  disposed  to  grant  a  foundation  in  fact,  embel- 
lished by  the  storyteller's  fancy,  i.e.  Haggadic  Jewish 
treatment,  to  the  glory  of  Israel  and  its  Divine  Pro- 
tector. The  deutero-canonical  Esther  would  then  have 
expressed  in  plain  terms  what  the  Hebrew  fragment 
implied,  as  Tobit  and  Judith  are  careful  to  bring  out 
the  lesson.'- 

Free  Handling  in  Hagiographa. — Job,  according  to 
Catholic  doctrine,  is  at  once  parable  and  history  in  a 
poetical  form.     Why,  then,  it  has  been  argued,  should 

'  Pinches,  Records  cf  Past,  N.S.,  iv.  104. 

-  Sayce  on  Esther  in  Higher  Crit.  and  Mon.,  469-75  ;  Driver,  Introd. 
Lit.  O.  T.,  452-57;  Jensen's  theories,  E.  Bl.,  1404. 

8* 


Il6  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

not  other  books  of  Scripture  contain  histoiy  dealt  with 
similarly  under  the  form  of  prose?  The  conditions 
appear  to  be  fulfilled  in  narratives  of  this  description. 
"  Hagiographa,"  thus  moulded,  would  occupy  a  middle 
place  between  epic  recitations  find  the  arrangement  of 
Chronicles.  Herodotus,  for  instance,  often  writes  as  a 
"  logographer,"  intent  on  pictorial  effect  more  than 
literal  truth.  Such  "  free  narrative  "  will  include  a  core 
of  history,  but  enjoys  large  room  in  details.  Writers 
and  readers  would  know  equally  well  that  Haggadah 
never  pledges  itself  to  the  exactitude  which  moderns 
cultivate  as  scientific.  Thus  Father  Prat,  S.J.,  "Are 
the  Books  of  Ruth,  Judith,  Esther,  Tobias,  in  their 
design  strictly  historical  ?  These  questions,  so  fre- 
quently discussed,  will  in  all  probabilit}^  never  be  de- 
cided. But  we  are  not  bound  to  hold  the  stricter  view. 
The  books  will  always  make  for  edification  and  moral 
teaching ;  for  this  purpose  they  were  written  and  in- 
spired. Hence  it  follows  that  we  need  not  look  in 
them  for  the  bare  historical  fact,  which  lay  beyond  the 
scope  of  the  authors."  ^ 

The  Problem  of  Daniel. — Problems  of  pseudepi- 
graphy  and  free  narration  reach  their  culminating  point 
in  the  Hebrew  and  Aramaic  Daniel  with  its  Greek 
appendages.  Chapters  i.-vi.  are  almost  purely  historical ; 
vii.-xii.  are  prophetic ;  the  Greek  fragments  are  history 
again,  and  their  originals,  translated  in  the  LXX.  or 
by  Theodotion,  have  perished.  Many  moderns,  after 
Ewald,  divide  the  Massoretic  volume  into  ten  pieces. 
The  text  of  the  LXX.  is  abbreviated  and  corrupt ;  ac- 
cordingly St.  Jerome,  following  the  ancient  Catholic  use, 
adopted  in  his  Vulgate  Theodotion' s  edition.  Refer- 
ences to  Daniel  by  name  occur  in  Ezek.  xiv,  14  ;  xxviii. 
3  ;  I  Mace.  ii.  59  or  60 ;  Matt.  xxiv.  i  5  ;  Mark  xiii.  14 ; 
other  allusions  to  his  prophecies  in   Matt.  xxvi.  64 ; 

1  V.  Hummelauer,  Excg.  Inspir.,  36-39  ;  Vigouroux,  in  Revue  Bib- 
liqne  (1899),  50;  Lagrange,  Hist.  Crit.,  Eng.  Tr.,  202,  on  "legendary 
history  "  ;  Jewish  Encycl.  on  Judith. 


PORPHYRY  ON  DANIEL  I  1 7 

Mark  xiv.  62  ;  2  Thcss.  ii. ;  Hcb,  xi.  33  ;  and  in  the 
Apocalypse  throughout.  Joscphus  (A ntiq.^  xi.  8)  a.sscrts 
that  the  book  of  Danicl'.s  prophecies  was  exhibited  to 
Alexander  the  Great  on  his  entrance  to  Jerusalem  by 
the  High  Priest  Jaddua.  But  no  other  historian  is 
aware  of  Alexander's  visit  to  the  Holy  City,  though 
on  his  march  into  Egypt  (332)  he  received  the  volun- 
tary submission  of  the  Jews,  and  may  have  been  shown 
their  sacred  books.  There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt 
that  New  Testament  writers,  like  their  brethren  of  the 
Synagogue,  held  Daniel  for  a  prophet  and  the  author  of 
the  volume  in  which  (viii.  i.,  etc.)  he  speaks  by  name. 

From  Porphyry  Onwards. — The  Fathers  took  over 
this  opinion,  as  they  did  other  Jewish  traditions  concern- 
ing the  Biblical  authors.  But,  says  St,  Jerome,  "  Against 
the  Prophecy  of  Daniel  Porphyry  wrote  twelve  books, 
and  would  not  allow  it  to  be  written  by  him  whose 
name  it  bears,  but  by  one  who  lived  in  Juda:a  under 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  (the  IVth),  and  he  affirmed  that 
Daniel  did  not  predict  the  future  but  narrate  the  past".^ 
Replies  to  the  heathen  critic,  no  longer  extant,  were 
published  by  Methodius,  Eusebius,  Apollinaris  of  Lao- 
diciea,  and  St,  Jerome  himself.  The  controversy  was 
re-opened  by  Spinoza,  Collins,  Bentley,  and  the  German. 
Rationalists  who  followed  Semler.  It  is  now  held  al- 
most universally  outside  the  Church  that  "the  exilic 
Daniel  was  simply  employed  as  a  literary  device  by 
a  writer  of  much  later  date,  who  regarded  the  fury  of 
Antiochus  Epiphanes  as  the  last  visitation  of  the  people 
of  God  before  the  blessed  time  of  the  end  should  come".^ 
Internal  evidence,  we  are  told,  shows  with  a  cogency 
which  cannot  be  resisted  that  the  book  must  have  been 
written  not  earlier  than  about  300  B.c,  and  in  Palestine ; 
probably  in  B.C.  168  or  167,^ 

Reasons  given  are  such  as  these  : — 

Its   late    position    in    the    Canon,   not   among   the 

'Jerome,  In  Dan.,  prsf.         -E.  Bi.,  1008. 
^  Driver,  Introd.  Lit.  O.  T.,  467. 


Il8  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Prophets ;  omission  of  Daniel's  name  in  Ben  Sira's 
eulogy  of  Hebrew  worthies  (xliv.-l.),  though  he  comes 
down  to  Ezekiel  and  the  Minor  Twelve;  allegation 
that  Nebuchadrezzar  (whose  name  is  wrongly  spelt, 
not  as  in  contemporary  Jerem,  and  Ezekiel)  besieged 
Jerusalem  in  third  year  of  Jehoiakim,  which  does 
not  agree  with  Book  of  Kings  and  Jeremiah ;  use  of 
the  term  "  Chaldaeans "  for  Babylonians,  unknown  to 
cuneiform  literature,  and  a  late  Greek  manner  which 
identified  "Chaldaeans"  with  soothsayers  and  magicians ; 
the  statement  that  Belshazzar  was  "  King  of  Babylon  " 
and  "  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar,"  which  cannot  be  recon- 
ciled with  history;  and  the  reign  of"  Darius  the  Mede," 
son  of  Ahasuerus  (Xerxes),  for  whom  there  is  no  place 
in  the  Elamite-Persian  series. 

Difficulties  of  the  Language. — Thus  far  the  objec- 
tions of  critics  from  Porphyry  down  to  quite  recent 
times,  not  taking  into  account  the  language  of  Daniel. 
But  this,  too,  furnishes  arguments.  It  is  evident  that 
the  writer  supposed  Aramaic  to  be  the  court-dialect  in 
Babylon,  whereas  it  was  only  the  speech  of  commerce 
throughout  Western  Asia,  and  the  Babylonians  never 
gave  up  their  native  idiom,  as  why  indeed  should 
they?  To  fine  critics  the  Hebrew  of  Daniel  seems 
bookish  like  University  Latin,  i.e.,  imitated  from  dead 
authors,  which  would  imply  lateness.  It  has  features 
in  common  with  Esther,  Chron.,  Eccles.,  betraying  an 
age  subsequent  to  Nehemiah.  The  Aramaic  used,  a 
Western  or  Palestinian  dialect,  has  no  connection  with 
Babylon  of  580  B.C.  The  number  of  Persian  words 
mingled  with  it  are  not  only  remarkable,  but  apparently 
decisive  against  the  notion  that  before  Cyrus  conquered 
them  a  people  to  whom  the  Persians  were  utterly  foreign 
should  have  borrowed  such  words  to  describe  their  own 
institutions.  Cuneiform  texts  prove  that  they  did  not 
do  so.  But  Greek  words  occur,  names  of  musical  in- 
struments {kitJiaros,psanterin,  sumponyah),  two  of  which 
seem  very  modern  and  are  not  found  earlier  than  400  B.C. 


CYRUS  IN  BABYLON  II9 

Replies  by  Conservative  School. — Confirmation, 
however,  was  brought  by  conservative  champions  in 
aid  of  Daniel's  history  from  the  Greeks  who  had 
described  the  taking  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus  (Herodotus, 
i.  188-92 ;  Xcnophon,  Cyropced.,  vii.  5).  As  a  picture 
Daniel's  fifth  chapter  agreed  strikingly  with  the  his- 
torian and  the  romance-writer ;  though  it  was  not  easy 
to  perceive  in  Labynetus  the  name  of  Belshazzar,  and 
Cyaxares  in  Xenophon  {Cyrop.,  i.  4)  did  not  rightly 
answer  to  Darius  the  Mede, 

Cyrus  in  Babylon. — But  an  astonishing  series  of 
discoveries  have  now  altered  the  whole  position. 
Babylonian  records,  from  year  to  year  and  month  to 
month,  assure  us  that  the  story  told  in  our  Greek 
volumes  has  no  foundation  in  fact.  Cyrus  entered 
Babylon  without  violence ;  the  king  whom  he  deposed 
but  did  not  slay  was  Nabonidus,  curiously  transformed 
in  the  Herodotean  narrative  to  Labynetus.  His  son 
was  Belshazzar,  who  never  enjoyed  the  royal  dignity 
and  whose  end  is  unknown  ;  but  he  is  not  likely  to 
have  perished  under  the  sword  of  Cyrus.  That  king 
himself,  Lord  of  Anzan,  conqueror  of  Persia,  not  (it 
would  appear)  allied  to  the  Medes  but  to  the  Manda, 
received  his  new  dominions  from  the  hands  of  Bel- 
Merodach,  and  instead  of  being  a  monotheist  was  a 
worshipper  of  many  gods.  His  peaceable  entrance 
into  the  Great  City  followed  upon  a  religious  uprising 
against  Nabonidus.  And  as  he  began  to  reign  im- 
mediately (witness  the  contract  tablets  dated  under 
him),  no  interval  is  left  for  a  possible  Darius. 

Whence,  then,  the  Greek  legend  ?  It  is  due  to 
historical  perspective,  which  confounded  the  events  of 
538  B.C.  with  events  of  a  later  period.  How  little 
Xenophon  knew  of  Assyrian  story  is  clear  from  the  wild 
inventions  concerning  Larissa  and  Mespila  (Nineveh) 
which  we  meet  in  the  Anabasis  (bk.  3,  c.  iv.,  7,  1 1).  And 
Herodotus  cannot  be  followed.  The  siege  and  conquest 
of  Babylon,  attributed  to  Cyrus,  are  a  reflection  of  more 


I20  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

recent  captures  by  Darius  Hystaspes  in  521  and  515, 
both  achieved  against  rebels  who  took  the  style  of 
Nebuchadrezzar,  son  of  Nabonidus.  A  third  revolt 
brought  down  Xerxes  on  the  ancient  capital,  soon  after 
his  return  from  the  Greek  expedition,  when  he  de- 
stroyed not  only  the  fortification  but  the  temple  of 
Bel-Merodach,  as  we  learn  from  Arrian.  These  are 
the  incidents,  it  is  urged,  that  Daniel  has  thrown  back 
to  the  days  of  Cyrus,  bestowing  on  a  figurative  Darius 
the  name  and  qualities  of  the  son  of  Hystaspes,  and 
making  him  the  son  of  Xerxes  who  came  long  after. 
The  confusion  of  Persians  with  Medes  is  peculiarly 
Greek.^ 

"The  Maccabean  Horizon." — So  much  for  dififi- 
culties  into  which  no  religious  considerations  enter. 
But  it  has  been  felt  that  for  a  prophet  of  580-540  to  give 
his  message  a  "Maccabean  horizon,"  clear  in  minute 
detail  up  to  a  certain  point,  while  unconnected  with 
any  circumstances  of  his  own  time,  is  not  according  to 
the  analogy  of  Scripture.  Those  who  allow  no  divine  re- 
velation of  things  to  come,  have  set  down  the  book  with 
Porphyry  as  a  "  vaticinium  post  eventum  ".  However, 
the  objection  here  indicated  is  founded  on  characteristics 
of  Holy  Writ  and  claims  to  be  judged  from  that  outlook. 
As  Catholic  writers  in  general  use  a  similar  proof  against 
the  old  notion  (patronised  by  St.  Augustine)  that  David 
composed  the  Psalms  of  Exile,  there  is  nothing  hetero- 
dox in  the  principle  of  limitation.  That  Antiochus  IV. 
(176-164)  is  the  subject  of  Daniel's  prophecies  in  vii.-xii. 
becomes  clear  from  a  comparison  of  his  reign  with  what 
they  tell  us ;  but,  even  so,  they  include  future  events 
and  an  eschatology.  The  "daily  sacrifice"  was  sus- 
pended in  168 ;  the  Temple  purified  and  sacrifice  re- 
stored three  years  and  a  half  later ;  hence  the  date  of 
the  writing  is  fixed  to  this  period.  Now  Daniel  in  536 
had  no  connection  with  events  which  were  to  happen 

'  Sayce,  Higher  Crit,  and  Mori.,  496-537. 


APOCALYPTIC  WRITINGS  131 

nearly  four  centuries  afterwards,  and  it  is  alleged  that 
an  account  of  them  so  definite  and  therefore  so  enij^- 
matical  to  his  contemporaries,  is  without  example  in 
Scripture  ;  neither  would  it  have  brought  religious  com- 
fort to  the  exiles  when  the  second  Temple  was  not  even 
built.i 

Daniel  the  First  Apocalypse. — To  sum  up  the  modern 
contention :  Daniel  stands  at  the  head  of  apocalyptic 
Jewish  literature,  and  was  perhaps  its  first  chief  speci-^ 
men.  Antecedents  it  had  in  Zechariah,  to  some  extent 
in  Ezekiel.  But  the  great  age  of  these  mysterious 
figured  writings,  with  their  angelology  and  Messianic 
hopes,  begins  in  the  second  century  B.C.  Other  ex- 
amples are  the  Book  of  Enoch  (oldest  parts  about  I20 
B.C.),  the  Assumption  of  Moses  (90  B.C.),  2  or  4  Esdras 
(TTrst  century  A.D.).  To  a  different  but  cognate  branch 
the  third  and  fifth  books  of  the  Sibylline  Oracles  belong 
(perhaps  140  B.C.).  The  Book  of  Jubilees  cannot  well 
be  described  as  an  apocalypse.  Many  other  such  works 
are  known,  Jewish  or  Christian,  down  to  the  ShepJierd 
of  Hermas.  In  general,  they  are  ascribed  to  famous 
men  of  old  ;  but  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  con- 
demn a  literary  artifice  so  common  that  it  implied  little 
more  than  the  dedication  of  a  theological  treatise  to  a 
saint.  The  aim  of  Daniel  was  fulfilled  by  showing  under 
an  illustrfous  prophet's  name,  and  in  free  but  suggestive 
foreshortening  of  ancient  history,  the  victory  which 
Israel  might  anticipate  over  its  heathen  oppressor, 
Antiochus.  For  such  a  purpose,  viz.  edification,  it 
vvas  enough  to  assume  the  histoiy  which  Herodotus 
or  Xenophon  had  made  popular.  Yet  the  Maccabean 
writer  may  have  known  of  some  particulars  derived 
from  the  period  which  he  represents,  and  have  even 
employed  a  previous  groundwork  in  his  opening  chapters. 
"  It  by  no  means  follows,"  says  Driver,  "from  this  view 
of  the  book,  that  the  narrative  is  throughout  a  pure 

^  Analysis  and  parallels  in  Driver,  Introd.  hit.  O.  T.,  461-67.     Also 
his  Bk.  of  Dan.,  Cambr.  Bible  ;  opposite  view,  Comely,  ii.  489-90. 


122  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

work  of  the  imagination.  That  is  not  probable.  De- 
Htzsch,  Meinhold,  and  others  insist  rightly  that  the  book 
rests  on  a  traditional  basis.  Daniel,  it  cannot  be  doubted, 
was  a  historical  person,  one  of  the  exiles  in  Babylon, 
who,  with  his  three  companions,  was  noted  for  his  staunch 
adherence  to  the  principles  of  his  religion,  who  attained 
a  position  of  influence  at  court,  interpreted  Nebuchad- 
nezzar's dreams,  and  foretold  as  a  seer  something  of  the 
future  fate  of  the  Chaldean  (Kasdim)  and  Persian  em- 
pires." But  he  concludes,  "whatever  elements  of  fact 
may  be  contained  in  the  book,  they  are  mingled,  it  seems 
more  and  more  clear,  with  much  that  is  unhistorical  ".^ 

Midrashim  of  O.  T. — If  the  Book  of  Daniel  stood 
alone  as  inspired  Haggadah,  it  would  be  perplexing. 
But,  evidently,  the  sam.e  questions  confront  us  and 
ask  for  the  same  treatment  not  only  in  Job  and  Esther, 
but  in  Tobit,  Judith,  and,  so  far  as  the  strict  histori- 
cal character  is  under  consideration,  in  2  Maccabees. 
The  most  obvious  way  out  of  difficulties  otherwise 
urgent  is  to  regard  such  works  as  Midrashim,  where 
we  do  not  find  history  set  down  for  its  own  sake  but 
edifying  narratives  founded,  as  we  say,  on  fact.  We 
should  then  distinguish  between  the  "core,"  traditional 
basis,  and  the  "  husk,"  i.e.,  free  handling.  How  much 
is  kernel  and  how  much  envelope,  in  the  given  case,  we 
may  not  be  able  to  decide ;  nor  is  it  required.  The 
Fathers  did  not  bestow  great  attention  on  these  semi- 
poetical  books ;  and  St.  Jerome,  as  is  well  known,  took 
little  pains  in  translating  Tobit  and  Judith,  which  he 
reckoned  among  the  Apocrypha,  outside  the  Canon.^ 

1  Driver,  Introd.  Lil.  O.  T.,  479;  E.  Bi.  and  Hastings,  D.  B.,  on 
this  subject ;  among  Catholics  see  Cardinal  Meiijnan,  Prophctcs  dcpiiis 
Daniel,  sub  voce ;  and  Vie  de  C.  Meignan  by  Boissonnot,  467 ;  also 
Vigouroux,  Bible  ctDicouvcrtes  Mod.,  iv.  377  scq.  ;  Turmel  in  Annates 
phil.  Clint.,  Oct.,  1902;  Lagrange,  Hist.  Crit.,  Eng.  Tr.,g4,  95.  For 
Apocalyptic  Literature,  E.  Bi.  and  ycwish  Encycl.  under  title. 

*  Jerome,  Prol.  Galeat.,  calls  J.  apocryphal;  Prcf.  tn  Tobit  shows 
his  "free"  translation  of  such  works,  and  so  Prol.  in  Jtidith,  which 
seems  to  grant  that  book  canonical  rank  from  the  Nicene  Council. 


CHRONICLES— NEHEMI A  H  123 

To  this  latter  question  {oi  words  rather  than  things) 
we  shall  return.  Suffice  it  now  to  have  indicated 
the  two  schools  among  orthodox  writers,  of  which  the 
more  recent  grounds  itself  upon  undoubted  examples 
of  pseudcpigraphy  (Wisdom  of  Solomon,  "  orphan " 
Tsalms  ascribed  without  warrant  to  David)  and  on  the 
varying  degrees  of  historical  representation  admitted 
in  Scripture. 

Chronicles  as  a  Great  Instance. — We  arrive  at 
Chronicles,  V.zxa,  Nchemiah,  one  volume  in  three  parts, 
of  which  the  first,  comprising  two  books,  is  called  in 
LXX.  and  the  Vulgate  Paraliix)menon.  This  veiy 
late  composition  (about  430  B.C.)  has  well  been  termed 
an  "ecclesiastical  history,"  corresponding  in  principle 
to  the  Priestly  Code.  Like  that  revision  of  the  Law,  it 
includes  many  ancient  particulars ;  and  it  is  remarkable 
for  its  distinct  appeal  to  documents  of  a  public  nature. 
The  Chronicler,  who  is  quite  anonymous,  would  seem 
to  have  compiled  the  whole.  What  is  called  i  Esdras 
was  found  in  the  LXX.  and  known  to  Josephus  ;  it 
connects  Chronicles  with  Nehemiah  verbally.  How- 
ever, the  Massoretic  recension  is  different.  St.  Jerome 
translated  Theodotion's  text,  substituting  in  the  Vulgate 
his  new  Latin  for  the  old  l  Esdras ;  and  to  his  arrange- 
ment we  keep.  The  Chronicler  made  use  of  an  Aramaic 
oiiginal,  contemporaneous  with  the  Return  from  Exile 
and  of  very  high  value. 

Probable  Order  in  Ezra  =  Nehem. — A  recent  critic, 
Hoonacker,  has  plausibly  restated  the  series  of  events 
and  the  text  concerning  them  as  follows  : — 

(i)  Ez.  i.-iv.  5  ;  iv.  24- vi. :  The  first  return. 

(2)  Ez.  iv.  6-23  :  Artaxerxes  L  forbids  rebuilding  of 
walls  of  Jerusalem. 

(3)  Book  of  Nehemiah :  Ezra  becomes  secondary ; 
Eliashib  is  High  Priest. 

(4)  Ez.  vii.-ix.  :  Artaxerxes  H.  reigning,  and  Jo- 
chanan   High  Priest. 

Anotlier  problem,  on  which  various  dates  depend,  is 


124  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

whether  we  should  identify  Sheshbazzar,  "  Prince  of 
Judah,"  who  led  back  the  exiles  in  first  year  of  Cyrus 
(Ez.  V.  2-5,  14-16),  with  Zerubbabel,  who  was  the 
contemporary  of  Jeshua,  High  Priest,  and  of  the 
prophets  Haggai  and  Zechariah.  The  matter  is  en- 
tangled by  statements  in  Ezra  iv.,  which  seem  to 
transfer  this  group  from  the  age  of  Darius  Hystaspes 
(520  B.C.)  to  that  of  Darius  Nothus,  a  century  later 
(422  B.C.).  It  is  now  held  that  Zerubbabel  was  not 
living  under  Cyrus ;  and  that  he  belongs  to  the  reign 
of  Darius  Hystaspes.  Once  more  the  historical  per- 
spective of  an  obscure  period  has  been  shortened  by 
the  inspired  penman.  The  mission  of  Nehemiah  goes 
back  to  445  ;  the  last  period  of  Ezra  would  begin  398, 
in  the  seventh  year  of  Artaxerxes  H.^ 

Post=  Exilic  History  and  P.C. — Chronicles  are  written 
from  the  post-exilic  point  of  view.  Though  upwards 
of  forty  sections  furnish  parallels  to  the  great  sacred 
history  of  Genesis-Kings,  the  work  is  a  religious  epitome, 
and  omits  not  only  the  period  of  the  Judges,  but  the 
vicissitudes  of  Northern  Israel  after  it  fell  away  from 
Rehoboam.  The  compiler  intended  chiefly  to  relate 
the  development  of  public  worship,  and  the  attitude  of 
successive  kings  towards  the  Mosaic  ideals.  His  quota- 
tions from  earlier  documents  are  governed  by  the  like 
principles,  and  so  too  his  introduction  of  the  Prophets. 
The  prologue  (mostly  catalogues  of  names)  occupies 
I  Chron.  i.-ix. ;  the  history  extends  throughout  both 
books  into  Ezra-Nehemiah.  As  many  as  sixteen 
sources  of  information  are  mentioned  ;  but  whether, 
and  in  what  shape,  our  present  Book  of  Kings  was 
consulted  by  the  Chronicler  is  disputed.  In  any  case 
revision  of  the  text  from  a  much  later  standpoint  can 
hardly  be  denied.  Special  difficulties  attach  to  the 
chronological  scheme  and  the  statistics  of  Chronicles 

1  Hoonacker,  in  Revue  Biblique,  Jan.,  Apr.,  1901 ;  Sayce,  Higher 
Crit.  and  Moii,,  539-48.  For  i  (iii)  Esdr.  see  Driver,  Introd.  Lit. 
O.  T,,  553;  Loisy,  Canon  O.  T.,  iS-22. 


JEWISH  CHURCH  HISTORY  1 25 

wliich  remain  wlien  errors  of  transcription  have  been 
taken  into  account.  "  It  docs  not  seem  possible,"  says 
Driver,  "to  treat  tiie  additional  matter  as  strictly  and 
literally  historical."  On  the  other  hand,  neither  should 
we  charge  the  compiler  with  a  "deliberate  perversion 
of  history  ".  For  "  he  and  his  contemporaries  did  not 
question  that  the  past  was  actually  as  they  pictured  it ". 
Does  inspiration  require  an  adequate  presentation  of 
such  facts?  or  will  not  the  popular  tradition,  true  in  its 
own  character,  be  sufficient  on  which  to  ground  a  book 
mainly  intended  for  spiritual  teaching  ?  The  author 
would  simply,  therefore,  have  us  to  understand  that  this 
was  the  view  taken  of  Israel's  religious  development  by 
himself  and  his  people  in  the  third  century  B.C.^ 

Here  ends  the  Hebrew  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament 

1  Driver,  lutrod.  Lit.  O.  T.,  498,  501 ;  Brown,  on  Chron.  in  Hastings, 
D.  B.  ;  Gigot,  Gin.  Inirod.,  556;  E.  Bi.,ad  vocem.  Consult  for  their 
bearinc^  on  the  materials  and  historical  methods  of  Chronicles  the 
answers  of  Biblical  Commission  as  regards  the  Pentateuch,  supra, 
p.  61.  The  discovery  of  Aramaic  (Chaldee)  papyri  dated  408-7  B.C.  at 
Assuan,  Illustrating  the  Temple-ritual,  has  now  enabled  scholars  to 
carry  back  the  composition  of  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Nehemiah  to  the  fifth 
century,  and  the  institutions  of  P.  C.  to  an  indefinitely  earlier  time. 
Vid.  Jer.  xliii. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

BOOKS  OF  THE  SECOND  CANON. 

The  Antileg-omena  O.  T. — Seven  volumes — Wisdom 
of  Solomon,  Ecclesiasticus,  Baruch,  Tobit,  Judith,  i  and 
2  Maccabees,  with  fragments  of  Esther  and  Daniel — 
are  admitted  into  the  Latin  Vulgate,  which  were  never 
any  portion  of  the  Hebrew  Bible.  It  may,  however, 
be  said  that  they  tended  to  become  a  Fourth  Jewish 
Canon,  as  is  clear  from  the  New  Testament  references, 
and  their  early  entrance  among  books  of  the  LXX. 
We  propose  to  describe  them  in  as  few  words  as  pos- 
sible, before  summing  up  their  histoiy  in  the  Christian 
ages, 

Greek  Book  of  Wisdom. — The  Wisdom  of  Solomon 
is  Greek  in  language  and  ideas.  It  had  no  Hebrew 
original ;  its  author  is  unknown.  St.  Jerome  refers  to 
ancient  writers  who  made  Philo  of  Alexandria  respon- 
sible for  it, — an  opinion  universally  rejected.  Bonfrere, 
S.J.,  Cornelius  a  Lapidc,  and  others,  who  did  not  wel- 
come the  notion  of  pseudepigraphy  in  Scripture,  have 
endeavoured  to  trace  in  Wisdom  vestiges  of  Solomon's 
writing ;  but  of  such  an  hypothesis  there  is  no  need. 
The  Muratorian  Fragment  qualifies  it  as  "written  by 
Solomon's  friends  in  his  honour".  A  probable  view 
ascribes  it  to  the  period  of  Ptolemy  Physcon  (145-117 
B.C.).  The  Vulgate  text  is  Vetus  Latina ;  St.  Jerome 
would  not  emendate  any  but  the  Hebrew  Canon  to 
which  Wisdom  did  not  belong.^ 

1  Jerome,  /n  Lib.  Sal.juxt.  LXX.,  Pref.  in  Sal.;  Comely,  Introd, 
Spec,  ii.  223-27. 

126 


BEN  SIRA—BARUCH  1 27 

Ben  Sira  or  Ecclesiasticus. — Ecclesiasticus,  we  learn 
from  its  well-known  prologue,  was  composed  in  Piebrew, 
— some  portions  of  which,  though  perhaps  mingled  with 
re-translations,  have  been  lately  recovered, — by  Jesus  the 
son  of  Sirach  (about  200  or  180  B.C.)  and  rendered  into 
Greek  by  his  grandson  (130  or  a  little  later).  Argu- 
ments which  would  cany  it  back  to  Simon  I.,  the  Just, 
and  the  year  280,  have  no  great  weight.  The  present 
title,  which  is  not  original,  appears  to  indicate  that  neo- 
phytes were  given  this  book  as  an  introduction  to  Holy 
Scripture.  In  Greek  it  is  called  the  Wisdom  of  Jesus 
son  of  Sirach ;  in  Hebrew  according  to  St,  Jerome, 
^3Ieshalim,  ic.  ParaBTes.  Its  resemblance  to  Proverbs 
is  deliberate  and  obvious.  First,  it  delivers  precepts 
concerning  virtues,  ii.-xxiii. ;  second,  it  brings  in  Wisdom 
speaking,  and  continues  the  doctrine  to  xlii.  14 ;  third, 
it  gives  examples  from  Jewish  tradition  and  a  panegyric 
in  chapter  1.  of  the  High  Priest  Simon  (probably  the 
Second).  With  a  prayer  for  enlightenment  it  concludes. 
Some  transposition  of  leaves  has  taken  place  in  the 
Greek  MSS.,  but  the  Vulgate  order  is  to  be  maintained.^ 

The  Date  of  Baruch. — Baruch  is  virtually  a  part  of 
Jeremiah,  and  has  always  held  that  position  among 
Catholic  Fathers,  as  well  as  in  Church  catalogues.  It 
has  introduction,  i.  1-14  ;  confessions  and  prayers  to  iii. 
8 ;  praise  of  wisdom  and  promise  of  the  Return,  iii.  9- 
V.  9,  and  l{p.  of  Jer.  vi.  The  first  section  is  thought  to 
exhibit  much  more  affinity  with  Hebrew  than  the  last. 
If  by  "the  Epistle"  Origen  meant  the  whole  of  Baruch, 
its  existence  in  that  language  would  be  decided.  The 
notes  in  Syro-Hexaplar  seem  to  favour  this  conclusion. 
Modern  critics  deny  its  organic  unity ;  are  divided  as 
regards  the  primitive  language  of  various  portions, 
though  Hebrew  is  now  favoured  ;  agree  generally  that 
Baruch  was  not  the  author ;  and  bring  it  down  to  the 

» Jerome,  ut  supra,  Pnf.  in  Sal. ;  for  Heb.  Text,  Cowley,  Schechter, 
Margoliouth ;  Nestle  in  Hastings,  D.  B.  Cornely,  ut  supra,  248-52,' 
on  date  and  author. 


128  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

first  century  B.C.  The  closing  passage,  quoted  so  fre- 
quently in  Patristic  literature  (iv.  36-v.  9),  resembles  the 
eleventh  among  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,  composed  in 
Hebrew,  but  here  imitated  from  a  Greek  translation. 
Baruch,  on  this  argument,  should  be  added  to  the  list 
ofjjseudepigraphs.^ 

Tobit  and  its  Questions. — Tobit  or  Tobias  comes 
first  in  order  of  deutero-canonical  books  with  Latins, 
testifying  that  it  was  held  to  be  the  oldest  among  them. 
The  Vulgate  accepts  St.  Jerome's  version,  which  is  an 
abridgment,  not  literal,  from  a  "Chaldee"  reading  un- 
known till  recent  times,  when  it  was  recovered  in  sub- 
stance by  Neubauer.  That  its  original  was  Hebrew  is 
altogether  probable.  The  Vatican  Greek  text  is  held 
in  high  esteem.  Catholics  do  not  agree  touching  the 
authorship,  which  many  would  ascribe  to  the  elder 
Tobit,  while  others  leave  the  book  anonymous.  But 
all  are  of  one  mind  in  rejecting  views,  common  to  out- 
side critics,  that  it  was  composed  after  the  Christian 
era.  Gratz,  for  example,  attributes  it  to  the  period  of 
Hadrian  (120  A.D.)  and  Neubauer  assents.  Moderns 
draw  a  strong  argument  from  the  silence  of  Josephus. 
When  it  was  included  in  the  LXX.  we  cannot  tell. 
But  there  is  every  reason  to  hold  that  Christians  would 
never  have  regarded  as  Scripture  a  Hebrew  volume 
written  in  or  after  Apostolic  times  by  a  non-Christian. 
The  variations  in  text  are  many  and  remarkable.  Tobit 
is  certainly  Haggadah  of  a  beautiful  kind.  Regarding 
its  historical  worth,  no  tradition  of  the  Fathers  obli- 
gatory on  Catholics  appears  to  exist.  Its  relation  to 
other  stories,  such  as  T/ic  Grateful  Dead  and  the  Tale 
of  AJiicJiar,  has  been  used  in  illustration  of  the  romantic 
nature  ascribed  to  it  by  modern  readers ;  so  too  the 
symbolical  names  of  its  personages,  and  the  borrow- 
ings, as  they  say,  from  Persian  mytliology  of  Asmodeus 
[Aeshj/ia-daevd),  etc. 

'  Vigouroux,  M.  B.,  ii.  nos.  718-24 ;  E.  Bi.,  ad  vocem. 


TOBIT— JUDITH  129 

Whatever  be  thought  of  these  allegations,  a  history 
like  Tobit's  in  all  its  religious  circumstances  must  have 
been  far  from  uncommon  during  the  Exile  and  Captiv- 
ity. The  ministering  care  of  angels  is  an  article  of  the 
Catholic  as  it  was  of  the  Hebrew  faith  ;  and  we  may 
consider  this  beautiful  little  story  as  indeed  a  pious 
apologue,  but  not  on  that  account  fictitious,  any  more 
than  the  Lives  of  the  Saints  which  it  manifestly  antici- 
pates. The  book  is  well  termed  a  practical  vindication 
of  Providence,  and  falls  into  the  same  category  with 
Job,  Esther,  Judith.  We  need  not  take  it  for  a  chapter 
of  Assyrian  history  in  the  strict  sensei 

Judith. — Judith  occupies  a  similar  position,  and  is 
to  be  judged  by  its  Haggadic  character.  St.  Jerome 
handled  it  at  the  request  of  some  Latin  bishops,  trans- 
lating his  Aramaic  text  hurriedly  with  an  eye  to  the 
Vetus  Itala,  The  original  was  Semitic,  as  idioms  and 
construction  prove.  Both  Greek  and  Latin,  though  vaiy- 
ing  much,  are  authentic  recensions,  but  the  Latin  omits  a 
good  deal.  No  author  can  be  suggested.  The  historical 
data  have  given  rise  to  discussions  which  tend  more  and 
more  towards  disproving  that  Judith  was  \\Titten  cither 
before  or  during  the  Bab}'lonian  captivity.  "Nebuchad- 
onosor"  did  not  reign  in  Nineveh  or  take  Ekbatana; 
Arphaxad,  the  Median  King,  is  really  a  geographical 
expression  ;  Arioch,  King  of  the  Elymseans,  is  borrowed 
from  Genesis ;  and  the  Persian  name  of  Holofcmes  will 
not  suit  a  Babylonian-Assyrian  commander  of  600  B.C. 
Other  anachronisms  are  noted.  The  explanations  offered 
do  not  satisfy  learned  men  ;  and  it  seems  advisable  to 
deduce  from  the  very  way  in  which  history  and  geo- 
graphy are  handled  that  the  writer  himself  meant  his 
work  to  be  read  as  a  free  description  of  the  past.  The 
name  of  the  High  Priest  Joachim  (xv.  9)  is  certainly 
that  of  one  who  lived  in  the  times  of  Zerubbabel,  which 

'  Vigouroux,  M.  B.,  nos.  169-73,  for  the  old  historical  view;  Neubauer, 
Book  of  Tobit,  for  recovered  text.  Gigot,  Spec.  Introd.,  342  ;  R.  Harris, 
Story  of  Ahikar, 

9 


I30  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

makes  impossible  the  references  to  an  Assyrian  monarch. 
Bethulia  has  been  identified  on  good  grounds  with 
Shecnem,  and  points  to  the  Maccabean  era.  But  its 
designation  in  the  story  is  symbolical  (virgin  of  Israel), 
as  are  the  names  of  Judith  and  Achior.  Hence,  while 
assuming  a  basis  of  fact,  we  may  call  the  book  an  in- 
spired parable.^ 

History  and  Midrash  in  Maccabees. — Four  books  of 
Maccabees  are  extant,  of  which  the  Third  and  Fourth 
have  been  put  aside  by  the  Church  as  uncanonical. 
Those  which  we  call  i  and  2  bear  a  relation  to  each 
other  not  unlike  that  between  Kings  and  Chronicles. 
I  Mace,  is  an  admirable  specimen  of  history  according 
to  the  best  Hebrew  standard  ;  while  2  Mace,  supple- 
ments it  in  part  after  the  manner  of  Midrash,  but  is  not 
a  sequel,  and  comes  from  an  independent  source.  The 
original  dialect  of  i  Mace,  was  Hebrew  or  Aramaic. 
St.  Jerome  found  it  in  what  he  calls  Hebrew,  which  may 
mean  either  idiom.  2  Mace,  was  always  Hellenistic, 
resembling  Polybius,  rich  in  words,  and  highly  rhetorical. 
Of  neither  volume  is  the  author  ascertained  ;  but  the 
second  declares  itself  to  be  an  epitome  of  a  much  larger 
work,  in  five  books,  by  Jason  of  Cyrene.  i  Mace,  was 
written  not  long  after  the  death  of  John  Hyrcanus 
(105  B.C.).  2  Mace,  probably  attaches,  in  its  materials, 
to  somewhere  about  150-124,  and  in  composition  may 
be  located  between  the  last-mentioned  date  and  the 
capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Pompey  in  64  B.C.  The  Greek 
version  of  i  Mace,  is  excellent.  Our  Vulgate  follows 
the  Vetus  Latina. 

The  whole  has  been  termed  "  Maccabees  "  (or  Macha- 
bees,  which  LXX.  favours)  as  indicating  not  author- 
ship but  subject.  What  this  title  of  Judas  the  Deliverer 
means  has  never  been  satisfactorily  made  out ;  perhaps, 
as  in  Charles  "  Martel,"  it  signifies  the  "Hammer". 
Whoever  composed  the  First  Book  writes  like  a  Jew  of 

'  Vigouroux,  ii.  187-94,  defends  literal  history;  Gigot,  Iittr.  Sf>£c. 
{pro  et  co}itra),  352,  355.     Sa.yce,  co7itra,  Higher  Crit.  Moii.,  552. 


THE  MACCABEES  13  I 

Palestine  and  a  Sadducee,  employs  documents  and  in- 
formation contemporaneous  with  events,  is  accurate  in 
his  chronolog)',  and  has  bequeathed  to  us  a  "  record  of 
priceless  value".  Statements  dealing  with  Alexander 
the  Great,  Roman  institutions,  the  pedigree  of  the 
Spartans,  and  other  foreign  matters  lie  open  to  criti- 
cism ;  but  they  represent  the  views  of  persons  quoted 
or  common  reports,  and  leave  inspiration  untouched, 

2  Mace,  offers  a  different  appearance.  It  is,  in  many 
respects,  a  singular  and,  on  the  traditional  view  of 
Scripture,  almost  a  unique  composition.  The  two 
letters  by  which  it  is  introduced  have  not,  in  them- 
selves, any  claim  to  divine  authority,  more  than  the 
rescripts  of  Persian  Kings  elsewhere  copied  (Ezra- 
Nehem.).  Was  Jason  of  Cyrene  an  inspired  author? 
That  position  is  held  by  no  Catholic  commentator  on 
the  Bible.  But,  again,  the  writer  says,  "  All  such  things 
we  have  attempted  to  abridge  in  one  book  .  .  .  leaving 
to  the  authors  the  exact  handling  of  every  particular". 
And  he  finishes  with  an  apology:  "which  if  I  have 
done  well,  and  as  it  becometh  the  histor}^,  it  is  what  I 
desired  ;  but  if  not  so  perfectly,  it  must  be  pardoned 
me"  (ii.  24,  29;  xv.  39). 

The  epitomator  is  not,  then,  answerable  for  "  every 
particular  "  point ;  we  may  argue  that  Jason  of  Cyrene, 
going  upon  the  usual  methods  of  narration  in  his  time, 
set  down  reports  as  they  came  to  him.  The  earlier 
portion  is  allowed  to  be  substantially  true ;  and  in  much 
it  agrees  with  i  Mace,  in  several  other  accounts  with 
Josephus.  But  "improbabilities  and  exaggerations" 
have  been  charged  on  the  book  as  a  whole,  including 
discrepancies  from  its  predecessor ;  and  the  abundant 
supernatural  details  give  umbrage  to  modern  critics. 
These  difficulties  find  their  treatment  in  our  commen- 
tators and  cannot  be  answered  e;/  bloc.  Yet  when  wo. 
observe  so  frequent  a  reference  to  Divine  inter[x>sition, 
it  is  plain  that  the  author's  purpose  approaches  much 
more  nearly  than  that  of  i  Mace,  to  prophetic  teaching ; 

p  * 


132  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

while  history  is  made  to  furnish  the  background.  We 
have  already  met  a  similar  use  of  it  in  Chronicles. 
Accordingly,  there  would  be  no  obligation  on  us  to 
defend  the  exact  statements  of  which  it  is  said,  in  so 
many  words,  that  the  responsibility  for  them  lies  outside 
this  abridgment.  But  2  Mace,  throws  an  instructive  light 
upon  the  laws  which  govern  inspiration,  both  as  regards 
its  human  preliminaries  and  its  relation  to  the  materials 
brought  under  survey.  Compilation  is  now  regarded 
by  scholars  as  the  appropriate  method  of  our  historical  . 
books  ;  and  that  edification,  not  the  imparting  of  know- 
ledge, was  their  chief  aim  (as  so  clearly  appears  in  this 
abridgment)  is  a  principle  which  lightens  indefinitely 
the  task  of  exegesis.  Thus,  then,  2  Mace,  confirms 
what  has  been  said  by  Newman,  "though  the  Bible  be 
inspired,  it  has  all  such  characteristics  as  might  attach 
to  a  book  uninspired  "} 

These  Writings  and  the  Canon. — Our  next  ques- 
tion concerns  the  place  of  these  later  Scriptures  in  the 
Christian  Economy.  Protestants,  for  whom  they  con- 
stitute the  "  Apocrypha  "  (which  from  its  first  meaning 
"hidden"  has  come  to  signify  "spurious"),  have  ex- 
cluded them  altogether  from  their  Bible,  or  given  them 
a  lower  rank,  such  as  the  Church  of  England  in  her 
sixth  Article  expresses,  "  And  the  other  Books  (as 
Hierome  saith)  the  Church  doth  read,  for  example  of  life 
and  instruction  of  manners  ;  but  yet  doth  it  not  apply 
them  to  establish  any  doctrine ".  What  was  the  ver- 
dict of  the  Fathers  ?  Since  "  Hierome "  by  himself 
cannot  found  a  tradition,  we  inquire  how  the  matter 
stands  in  Catholic  antiquity  at  large.  The  answer  is 
not  doubtful.  Antiquity  went  beyond  the  Hebrew 
catalogue  in  theory  and  practice. 

No  List  in  the  Bible  Itself. — A  list  of  sacred  writings 
is  nowhere  to  be  met  with  in  the  Old  or  New  Testa- 
ment.    Whatever  authority  drew  one  up  it  did  so  by 

1  Discussions  and  Arguments,  146 ;  Gigot,  Int.  Spec,  365-81 ;  Patrizi, 
De  Consensu  Lib.  Mace. ;  Fairweather  in  Hastings,  D.  B.,  ad  vocam. 


THE  LARGER  CANON  133 

choosincf  from  books  already  extant,  but  neither  the 
catalogue  nor  its  history  finds  mention  in  the  books 
themselves.  It  is  impossible  to  separate  the  volumes 
of  the  Second  from  the  First  Canon  by  appealing  to  a 
Bible-statement.  In  short,  the  Canon  is  an  ecclesiastical 
dogina.  "  Eveiy  Scripture,"  we  learn  from  St.  Paul,  is 
inspired  ;  but  what  is  every  Scripture  ?  This  we  can 
only  find  out  by  the  use  and  acceptance  of  Fathers, 
Councils,  Popes ;  in  which  if  some  degree  of  variation 
appears  during  times  known  to  us  so  imperfectly  as 
the  first  centuries,  we  ought  not  to  be  surprised.  The 
explanation  is,  in  most  cases,  not  far  to  seek. 

LXX.  and  New  Testament  Recognise  Larger  Canon. 
— Negatively,  then,  no  date  is  assignable  at  which 
Christians  did  not  regard  as  inspired  other  books  out- 
side the  Palestinian  Hebrew.  And,  positively,  among 
such  were  the  deutero-canonical  in  question.  Of  350 
references  made  in  the  New  Testament  to  ancient 
sacred  authors,  300  are  taken,  it  appears,  from  the 
LXX.  Irenffius  and  St.  Jerome,  as  well  as  Origen, 
remark  on  the  circumstance.^  But  in  the  Apostolic 
period  it  is  certain  that  this  Greek  library  included 
most,  if  not  all,  of  our  present  reckoning.  Moreover, 
implicit  citations  from  the  larger  Canon  are  found  in 
Gospel  and  Epistles.  Allusions  to  Wisdom  of  Solomon 
have  been  traced  in  St.  Matthew,  Romans,  Hebrews, 
and  I  Peter ;  to  Ecclus.  in  St.  James  and  St.  Matthew ; 
to  Judith  and  2  Mace,  in  Hebrews.  Seven  books  of 
the  Palestine  Canon  are  never  quoted  in  the  New 
Testament ;  so  that  we  cannot  argue  from  the  silence 
of  the  Apostles  and  Evangelists,  but  from  their  practice 
we  may.  Origen  writes  sarcastically  of  those  who  would 
do  away  with  the  copies  {cxeviplaria)  of  Scripture  used 
in  our  churches  in  order  to  beg  from  the  Jews  an  incor- 
rupt reading.  There  is  no  book,  strict!}'  apocryphal,  of 
which  a  wide  and  lasting  usage  among  the  Fathers  can 

1  Iren.,  iii.  21 ;  Jerome,  PraJ.  in  Evang. ;  Origen,  in  Rom. 


134  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

be  demonstrated.  Those  of  the  Second  Canon  are 
employed  like  the  others,  not  merely  to  give  edif)'ing 
examples  but  to  prove  articles  of  the  faith,  on  all  hands, 
without  apolocy  or  qualification,  in  an  unbroken  series 
of  which,  as  above  indicated,  the  oldest  links  go  back 
to  our  Lord's  disciples.  Such,  also,  is  the  witness  of 
the  MSS.,  we  are  told  by  experts.  In  the  East  eveiy 
one  handled  the  LXX.  as  authentic  Scripture ;  in  the 
West,  from  200  A.D.  the  Latin  versions  took  a  similar 
position.  But  neither  East  nor  West  confined  itself  to 
the  twenty-two  Hebrew  volumes.  History  teaches  that 
the  Christian  Bible  always  had  in  it  books  of  the  second 
division.^ 

Quotations  in  Fathers.— Thus,  Clement  of  Rome 
refers  to  Wisd.,  Ecclus.,  Judith  and  Greek  Esther ;  the 
Clementine  Homily  shows  acquaintance  with  Tobias ; 
the  Shepherd  of  Hermas  brings  in  Ecclus.  and  2 
Mace.  St.  Irenaius  borrows  from  Wisd. ;  quotes  Baruch 
as  "Jeremias  the  Prophet,"  and  fragments  of  Daniel 
by  a  corresponding  formula.  St.  Hippolytus  com- 
mented on  Daniel,  including  the  story  of  Susanna; 
he  quoted  Wisd,,  Tob,,  Mace,  and  Baruch.  When 
we  arrive  at  200  A.D.  citations  of  all  these  works  as 
from  Holy  Writ  are  common  in  the  Latin  Church; 
TertuUian  and  Cyprian  carry  them  on  to  later  times,^ 

Among  Eastern  writers,  Barnabas  (so-called)  quotes 
Ecclus. ;  St.  Polycarp,  Tobias ;  and  Athenagoras,  Ba- 
ruch. Clement  Alex,  refers  to  Wisd.,  Tob..  Baruch,  as 
"  Divine  "  or  "  Scripture,"  and  draws  no  distinction  be- 
tween the  Hebrew  and  Greek  Canon.  Origen  defends 
in  express  terms  against  Julius  Africanus  the  canonicity 
of  Tab.,  Judith,  fragments  of  Esther  and  Daniel ;  he 
employs  all  the  books  in  his  apologetical  writings  with- 
out discrimination.  Dionysius  Alex,  follows  him  and 
quotes  Ecclus.,  Wisd.,  Baruch,  Tobias.  The  learned 
Methodius,  who  died  in  31 1,  on  the  eve  of  Constantine's 

'  Comely,  Introd.  Gen.,  62-64,  gives  references  in  detail  to  N.  T, 
^  Cornely,  ut  snhra,  68-71. 


ORIGEN'S  TENDENCIES  135 

triumph,  does  not  differ  on  this  head  from  Origen,  whose 
other  views  he  combated.  "  Equal  authority,  based  on 
equal  inspiration,"  was  allowed  by  these  P^athers  to  all 
the  writings  in  LXX.^ 

Polemical  Usage  and  Doubts. — St.  Justin  M.  held 
the  Alexandrian  text  to  be  inspired ;  he  made  it  a 
charge  against  the  Jews  that  they  had  mutilated  the 
Scriptures  (which,  however,  does  not  seem  to  raise  a  con- 
troversy about  the  two  Canons),  and  he  quotes  from  the 
Greek  Daniel.  In  disputing  with  Trypho  the  Hebrew, 
naturally  it  is  to  the  Palestine  recension  that  he  first 
appeals.-'  This  polemical  usage  has  always  been  well 
understood  ;  it  explains  why  Melito  of  Sardis  (about 
129  A.D,},  who  was  the  fir_st  Christian  writer  to  set  down 
in  a  catalogue  "the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament," 
should  have  limited  their  contents  —  omitting  Esther 
by  some  oversight — to  the  Jewish,  But  he  may  have 
opened  the  problem  which,  sooner  or  later,  was  sure  to 
be  mooted,  of  the  double  Canon.  We  feel  its  influence 
when  we  take  up  Origen's  commentaries.  That  great 
scholar,  on  the  one  hand,  rejects  with  disdain  every 
attempt  to  make  lapsed  Israel  a  judge  over  Christians. 
But,  on  the  other,  when  he  gives  a  list  of  the  Old 
Testament  he  reckons  the  twenty-two  Hebrew  books 
and  those  only.  As  an  apologist,  Origen  cites  all  the 
writings  accustomed  to  be  read  in  Church ;  as  a  critic, 
he  may  have  been  drawn  to  narrower  views.  Certain  it 
is  that  St.  Athanasius  (perhaps  367  A.D.)  in  his  "Festal 
Letter,"  distinguishes  and  puts  outside  the  Canon,  while 
reserving  them  for  the  instmction  of  neophytes,  Tobias, 
Judith,  Wisd.,  Ecclus., — the  practice  seeming  to  be 
ancient  in  Alexandria.  But  the  Saint  utterly  rejects 
the  "  Apociypha,"  which  lie  beyond  these  two  divisions 
and  were  invented  by  heretics.^ 

'  Comely,  ut  supra,  72-75  ;  Reuss,  Hist,  du  Canon. 
'^But  see  C.  Tryph.,  137,  in  favour  of  LXX. 

'Comely,  ut  supra,  75-78;  Orig.,  in  Psalm.;  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  vi.  25; 
Redepenning,  Origenes  (Germ.). 


136  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Canonical  =  Ecclesiastical  =  Apocryphal.  —  We    now 

perceive  three  classes  of  documents,  to  be  carefully 
distinguished,  canonical,  ecclesiastical,  and  apociyphal. 
The  first  two  classes  may  be  termed,  as  in  Eusebius, 
"acknowledged  "  and  "  disputed,"  though  the  Bishop  of 
Csesarea  deals  rather  with  criticism  than  Catholic  tradi- 
tion, and  he  is  far  from  rejecting  the  Second  Canon. 
St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (-1-386)  recommends  to  his  cate- 
chumens the  twenty-two  books  of  St.  Athanasius  (add- 
ing Ruth  to  Judges,  and  including  Esther  which  the 
Alexandrian  Patriarch  had  omitted).  Then  he  says : 
"  Let  the  others  be  outside,  in  a  lower  rank,  and  do  not 
read  in  private  that  which  is  not  read  in  the  churches". 
St.  Epiphanius  the  Cypriote  (t403)  is  less  explicit; 
he  counts  twenty-seven  Hebrew  books,  including  Baruch 
with  Jeremiah ;  and  puts  into  a  different  list,  while 
praising  them,  Wisdom  and  Ecclus.  Elsewhere,  these 
latter  writings  come  with  him  under  the  designation  of 
"all  the  divine  Scriptures".  St.  Gregory  Naz.  {f  ^Sg) 
gives  the  Hebrew  list,  calls  other  books  "  intermediate  " 
between  sacred  and  profane,  and  a  third  sort  dangerous. 
He  quotes,  in  his  Orations,  Wisd.  and  Ecclus.  To  the 
same  effect  SS.  Basil,  Gregory  Nyssen,  Caesarius.  The 
sixtieth  Canon  of  Laodicaea  (doubtful  age  and  origin, 
perhaps  363)  follows  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem.  And  we 
may  not  overlook  the  eighty-fifth  of  the  so-called  Apos- 
tolic Canons,  which  the  Eastern  Church  accepted  in 
Trullo  (692).  This  enactment  adds  to  the  Hebrew  list 
three  Books  of  Maccabees  and  commends  to  neophytes 
the  Wisdom  of  Sirach.  St.  John  Chrysostom  quotes 
indiscriminately  from  both  divisions,  and  so  Theodoret, 
representing  the  Greek-Syrian  usage. ^ 

The  West  and  St.  Jerome. — Let  us  return  to  the 
Westei-n  Fathers.  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers  ( -f  366), 
borrowing  his  exposition  of  Psalms  from  Origen,  lays 
down  the  catalogue  of  twenty-two  Books,  but  quotes, 

'  Cornely,  ut  supra,  90-100,  replies  to  objections. 


ST.  JEROME  137 

nevertheless,  from  all  the  others.  Rufinus,  who  defended 
Origen  vehemently  against  St.  Jerome,  writing  on  the 
Creed,  affirms  the  Hebrew  list,  goes  on  to  reckon  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  as  we  have  them,  de- 
clares that  "these  are  the  books  which  the  Fathers 
have  inserted  in  the  Canon,  and  upon  which  they  have 
established  the  truths  of  our  faith,"  but  allows  another 
division,  the  ecclesiastical  (our  six  deutero-canonical 
without  Baruch),  and  these  are  read  in  church.  Then 
he  mentions  "apocrypha,"  not  to  be  read.  By  "the 
Fathers  "  he  is  thought  to  mean  the  Easterns,  various 
of  whom  we  have  recited  previously. 

St.  Jerome,  in  his  preface  to  Kings  {Prolog,  galeatus, 
about  391),  applies  the  word  "apocrypha"  to  all  our 
second  catalogue,  and  declares  without  reserve  "they 
are  not  in  the  Canon ".  His  letter  to  Paulinus,  where 
he  gives  the  list  of  the  Old  Testament  books,  passes 
them  over.  In  prefacing  Ezra,  he  rejects  3  and  4 
Esdras,  adding  that  whatever  is  not  found  among  the 
Hebrews  "  should  be  cast  far  from  us  ".  It  is  when  in- 
troducing Solomon  that  he  writes  the  celebrated  words, 
an  echo  of  Rufinus,  which  the  Sixth  Article  of  the 
English  Church  incorporates.  He  is  severe  on  the 
fragments  of  Esther ;  still  more  on  those  of  Daniel ; 
exclaims  that  Origen,  Eusebius,  Apollinaris,  and  the 
other  Greeks  bear  him  out,  and  that  these  additions 
are  not  Holy  Scripture.  Writing  to  L3eta,'his  language 
is  violent  concerning  "  all  the  apocrypha " ;  he  would 
seem  not  to  spare  any,  whether  ecclesiastical  or  profane. 

These  expressions  find  no  warrant  in  the  general 
tradition.  It  is  true  that  St.  Jerome  once  or  twice 
employs  Tobit,  Judith,  Wisdom,  but  he  does  so  under 
restriction.  In  writing  about  such  works  to  Western 
bishops,  he  is  more  on  his  guard,  and  he  says,  "  As  we 
read  that  the  Council  of  Nicaea  reckoned  Judith  among 
the  Scriptures,  I  have  consented  to  your  request". 
Later  introductions  (Dan.,  412  ;  Jerem.,  414),  as  also 
the   disputes  with    Pelagians,   show   that  Jerome   had 


138  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

become  very  unwilling  to  adnriit  the  larger  Canon  ;  for 
him  it  would  appear  that  authenticity  and  inspiration 
are  commensurate  with  the  Hebrew.  That  so  he 
thought  habitually  cannot  be  questioned.^ 

African  and  Roman  Decisions.— Yet  a  tradition 
which  compelled  St.  Jerome  to  translate  for  the  West- 
ern Church  these  non-Hebrew  texts — though  he  would 
not  touch  Maccabees,  leaving  the  Vetus  Latina  as  he 
found  it — must  needs  have  been  very  clear.  The 
Greek  Fathers,  while  drawing  a  line  between  the  two 
divisions,  also  drew  one  between  the  "ecclesiastical" 
books  and  the  "  apocr}^pha "  ;  they  seem  to  admit 
degrees  of  inspiration,  rather  than  to  banish  the  second 
class  of  writings  from  Scripture.  That  position,  so 
conceived,  was  untenable.  And  Latin  Christendom, 
during  those  years  of  argument,  upheld  what  it  had 
received  before  the  disputes  arose.  If  St.  Jerome  re- 
presented a  somewhat  impatient  scholarship,  his  great 
African  contemporary  stood  for  the  immemorial  usage. 
Theology,  as  regards  the  Canon,  must  always  utter  the 
decisive  word.  It  did  so  now  in  three  Councils  at  which 
St.  Augustine  was  present  (Hippo,  393  ;  Carthage,  397, 
419).  The  first  and  second  ask  for  "confirmation  of 
this  canon  from  the  Church  oversea,"  z>.  Rome.  The 
third  submits  it  to  the  Roman  Pontiff,  St  Boniface, 
by  name. 

Rome  had  already  spoken.  There  was  a  document, 
"  De  recipiendis  et  non  recipiendis  libris,"  which  Pope 
Damasus  probably  issued  about  374,  containing  the 
First  and  Second  Canon,  as  the  African  Fathers  now 
reckoned  it.  In  405  St.  Jerome  dedicated  to  Exuperius, 
Bishop  of  Toulouse,  his  commentaiy  on  Zechariah.  The 
bishop  consulted  Pope  Innocent  I.  on  the  general  sub- 
ject, and  received  a  list  of  sacred  books  identical  with 
that  of  Damasus.  Further  evidence,  which  brings  out 
the  tradition  of  the  Spanish  Catholics,  has  been  dis- 

^  His  views  are  well  stated  in  Comely,  ut  supra,  104-11. 


EAST  AND  WEST  AGREE  139 

covered  in  a  work  b}'  the  heretic  PrisciHian,  Lt7?rr  dc 
fide  ct  cipocrypliis.  From  this  it  appears  that  no  ques- 
tion had  been  raised  in  Spain  touching  the  deutero- 
canonicai  books ;  but  that  real  apocrypha  such  as  4 
Esdras  were  altogether  excluded  from  the  Bible.  East 
and  West  agreed  in  three  principles:  (i)  that  it  was  for 
the  Church  to  settle  the  Canon  of  Scripture ;  (2)  that 
books  not  read  in  the  congregation  of  the  faithful  were 
outside  it ;  (3)  that  the  deutero-canonical  parts  were 
inspired.  Thus,  if  we  remember  how  the  whole  Church 
had  alwa}s  taken  the  Septuagint  for  an  authentic  ver- 
sion of  the  Old  Testament  approved  by  the  Apostles, 
we  may  safely  conclude  that  whatever  differences  were 
rife  between  Rome,  Spain,  Africa  on  the  one  side,  and 
Alexandria  or  Jerusalem  on  the  other,  in  effect  they 
all  held  the  same  premisses.  And  history  confirms 
this  opinion,  for  the  East  has  never  limited  its  Canon 
to  the  Hebrew.  The  most  eminent  Greek  Fathers 
make  use  of  the  second  list  in  their  teaching  as  Divine 
Scripture  ;  and  the  Western  catalogue  was  never  among 
the  causes  which  divided  Byzantium  from  Rome.  As 
much  can  be  said  of  the  Oriental  Churches,  Nestorian, 
Jacobite,  Armenian  and  Coptic.^ 

Private  Views  are  not  Tradition. — St.  Jerome, 
undoubtedly,  gave  an  opening  for  discussion,  vestiges 
of  which  were  visible  among  his  Latin  readers  down 
to  medieval  times.  In  this  respect  we  may  liken  him 
to  St.  Augustine,  the  "  Doctor  of  divine  Grace,"  as  he 
was  of  Scripture ;  a  similar  distinction  will  apply  in 
both  cases.  St.  Augustine  has  authority,  so  far  as  he 
expresses  the  universal  teaching  ;  but  his  private  views 
we  need  not  accept,  and  we  may  sometimes  feel  bound 
to  criticise  them.  The  divergence  in  St.  Jerome's 
thoughts  about  our  deutero-canonical  books  from  that 
account  of  them  which  prevailed  before  and  after  his 
time,   takes  away  his    representative   character ;    it    is 

'  Loisy,  Can.  V.  T.,  124-34. 


I40  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

certain  that  he  did  not  interpret  the  facts  of  tradi- 
tion accurately  as  we  know  them.  Davidson  remarks 
justly,  that  "  the  Fathers  who  give  catalogues  of  the 
Old  Testament  show  the  existence  of  a  Jewish  and 
a  Christian  canon,  the  latter  wider  than  the  former, 
their  private  opinion  more  favourable  to  the  one, 
though  the  other  was  historically  transmitted  ".^  In 
a  striking  page,  addressed  to  Leibnitz,  the  famous 
Bossuet  sums  up  and  applies  a  rule  which,  in  his  De 
Doctrina  Christiana,  St.  Augustine  has  left  on  this 
subject.  "To  establish  the  succession  of  a  sacred 
book,"  the  French  bishop  observes,  "  and  our  perpetual 
belief  in  it,  all  we  require  is  to  show  that  it  was  ever 
recognised,  and  that  by  the  greatest  number,  the  most 
ancient  and  revered ;  that  it  held  its  own  and  was 
spread  abroad  until  the  Holy  Spirit  (the  power  of 
tradition  and  feeling,  not  of  individuals,  but  of  the 
Church)  enabled  it  to  triumph,  as  at  the  Council  of 
Trent."  He  adds,  "  Since  the  term  '  canonical '  has  not 
always  borne  a  uniform  sense,  to  deny  that  a  book  is 
canonical  in  one  meaning,  does  not  exclude  it  from 
the  Canon  in  another.  ...  So  that  we  ought  to  re- 
concile, rather  than  to  set  in  opposition,  Churches  and 
writers,  by  principles  common  amid  their  differences, 
and  by  clearing  up  doubtful  words."  '^ 

Mediaeval  Opinions. — ^Nothing  could  be  more  exact 
to  the  points  at  issue.  Eastern  Fathers  did  not  put 
aside  the  divine  authority  of  our  Second  Catalogue  ; 
but  they  used  the  term  Canon  after  a  manner  ^^■hich 
the  Church  has  not  adopted.  St.  Jerome's  distinction 
between  books  dogmatic  and  books  merely  instructive 
lingered  on,  and  was  perpetuated  by  his  Prefaces  no 
less  than  by  his  parenthetical  remarks  up  and  down  the 
Vulgate,  yet  without  exciting  controversy  or  command- 
ing unmixed  assent.      Space  forbids  our  dwelling  on 

1  Davidson,  Canon  of  Bib.,  132. 
^Apud  Loisy,  Can.  V.  T.,  225. 


FLORENCE  DECIDES  141 

tlie  medi'jLval  Westerns  who  repeat  and  in  some  degree 
maintain  it.  Among  them  St.  Gregojy  the  Great, 
Von.  Bcde,  perhaps  Alcuin,  the  Glossa  Ordinaria  of 
Walafrid  Strabo,  Hugh  of  St.  Victor,  John  of  Sah'sbury, 
would  deserve  mention.  But  practice  and  tradition 
were  unaffected  by  the  subtleties  of  the  schools,  which 
instead  of  restricting  inspiration  tended  to  shelter  be- 
neath it  Canon  Law  and  the  Roman  decretals.  The 
Eastern  Church  accepted  without  discrimination  the 
various  catalogues  of  Carthage  and  in  Trullo,  harmon- 
ised them  by  use,  and  scarcely  differed  from  the 
Vulgate  Canon,  but  issued  no  new  regulations.  St. 
John  of  Damascus  imitates  the  language  while  follow- 
ing the  custom  of  St.  Epiphanius.  Later  on  Nicephorus 
of  Constantinople  completes  the  list  with  certain  "  antile- 
gomena,"  which  include  all  our  books,  and  the  Psalms 
of  Solomon.  To  this  grouping  the  Synopsis  called 
after  St.  Athanasius  is  now  attached.^ 

Nicholas  de  Lyra  (f  1341),  and  William  of  Occam 
(1347),  take  St.  Jerome's  words  literally.  Tostatus 
(t  H55))  St.  Antoninus,  Archbishop  of  Florence 
(f  1459),  Denys  the  Carthusian  (f  147 1),  Ximenes  in 
the  preface  to  his  Polyglot  (15 18),  and  last  of  all, 
Cajetan  (f  1534),  continue  to  quote  and  more  or  less 
to  follow  the  same  opinions. 

Florence  and  Trent. — But  when  authority  spoke 
again,  they  were  not  taken  into  account.  At  Florence 
(1442)  Eugenius  IV.  published,  with  the  approval  of 
the  Fathers,  his  decree  for  the  Jacobites.  It  declared 
that  "  the  holy  Roman  Church  acknowledges  one  and 
the  same  God  to  be  author  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment, viz.,  of  Law,  Prophets,  and  Gospel,  inasmuch  as 
by  inspiration  of  one  Holy  Spirit  the  Saints  of  both 
Testaments  have  spoken  whose  books  she  receives  and 
venerates  under  the  following  titles".  A  complete  list 
is  given,  the  works  of  both  classes  mingled  indiscrimin- 

1  Loisy,  ut  supra,  135-50. 


142  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

ately.  It  is  the  catalogue  set  forth  by  SS.  Damasus 
and  Innocent  I, 

Florence  was  an  oecumenical  Council,  the  decrees  of 
which  could  not  be  broken.  Therefore  when  at  Trent 
(1546)  the  bishops  decided  on  their  modus  agendi,\\. 
was  not  a  question  whether  the  larger  Canon  should 
be  received,  but  in  what  terms  the  deutero-canonical 
books  (sometimes  called  apocrypha  during  the  private 
debates)  were  to  be  mentioned.  The  bishops  voted 
for  a  simple  repetition  of  the  Florentine  catalogue ; 
they  were  desirous  to  leave  problems  like  that  of  St. 
Jerome's  language  "as  the  Fathers  had  left  them". 
So  it  was  done.  No  difference  in  point  of  canonicity 
between  any  of  the  books  recognised  as  "sacred  and 
canonical"  found  acceptation  in  the  Fourth  Session. 
Alike  with  Catholic  traditions  they  were  entitled  to 
an  equal  reverence  and  regard.  Whether  in  contents 
more  dogmatic  or  less,  all  being  inspired  were  entitled 
to  the  same  acknowledgment.  From  henceforth  no 
orthodox  Christian  was  permitted  to  reject  any  of 
them,  in  whole  or  in  part,  as  they  stood  in  the  Latin 
Vulgate  and  had  been  read  in  the  Church  time  out 
of  mind.  This  decree  covers  not  only  books  but 
fragments,  and  of  course  applies  to  both  Testaments.^ 

So  far  as  Catholic  principles  and  practice  were  con- 
cerned, the  Tridentine  measure  brought  in  no  new 
thing.  East  and  West  had  always  acted  on  the  view 
now  put  forward  ;  the  real  innovation  would  have  been 
to  restrict  the  Canon  in  a  Hebrew  sense  and  den}^  that 
the  seven  books  and  fragments  were  inspired.  "  Unless 
by  rejecting  her  own  past,"  says  Reuss,  a  German  Pro- 
testant critic,  "the  Catholic  Church  could  not  decide 
otherwise  than  in  fact  she  did."  The  reformers  who, 
beginning  with  Luther  in  1 5 19,  had  excluded  Maccabees 
and  the  rest  from  their  Bible-Canon,  thereby  threw  off 
Church  authority,  but  were  at  a  loss  how  to  determine 

^  Loisy,  lit  supra,  180,  194,  208  ;  Theiner,  Acta  Trident.,  i.  49-86. 


PROTESTANT  VIEWS  1 43 

what  books  ouf^ht  to  be  admitted.  In  regard  to  the 
Old  TestamctiL  they  fell  back  on  the  Synagogue  and 
its  Palestinian  recension, — which  was  but  substituting, 
contrary  to  Origan's  axiom^  the  Jewish  for  the  Christian 
rule  of  Scripture.  It  is  worth  while  to  remark  that  the 
Anglican  Sixth  Article  invokes  tradition  and  decides 
by  it,  "  In  the  name  of  the  Holy  Scripture  we  do  un- 
derstand those  Canonical  Books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  of  whose  authority  was  never  any  doubt 
in  the  Church";  and  again,  "All  the  Books  of  the 
New  Testament  as  they  are  commonly  received  we  do 
receive  and  account  them  Canonical  ". 

When,  however,  Catholic  usage  was  no  longer  the 
touchstone,  and  private  judgment  took  its  place,  the 
appeal  might  be  to  a  supernatural  intuition  (Luther  and 
CaLviii),.oj  to  reason  (the  Socinians),  or  to  historical  and 
literaiy  methods  (the  Higher  Criticism).  Canonicity, 
inspiration,  revelation,  all  were  submitted  to  a  dissolv- 
ing process,  and  the  Bible,  at  first  absolutely  divine, 
lost  its  prerogatives  little  by  little.  As  an  inspired 
whole,  recognised  by  the  Fathers,  known  to  the  faithful, 
digested  into  liturgy  and  Breviaiy,  from  which  nothing 
could  be  taken,  it  was  saved  to  the  Church  by  the 
Council  of  Trent. 


SECTION  II. 

CANON  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  SYNOPTIC  GOSPELS. 

Immediate  Pre-Christian  Literature. — In  the  series 
of  sacred  writings  there  is  a  break  extending  over  more 
than  a  century,  from  the  last  deutero-canonical  book 
(whichever  it  was)  to  the  first  of  the  Pauline  Epistles. 
i\  large  literature  of  apocalypses  and  allegories  fills  the 
interspace.  The  unknown  authors  who  attributed  their 
dreams  to  Enoch,  Moses,  and  the  Sibyls,  represent  one 
direction  which  the  human  spirit  was  now  taking ; 
Philo  the  Alexandrian,  who  evaporated  the  Bible  into 
mystic  and  moral  symbolism,  stands  for  another  and, 
to  some  extent,  an  opposite  school.^  Providence  had 
so  ordered  the  course  of  things  that  whatever  possessed 
a  value  in  these  two  movements  should  be  distilled, 
as  it  were,  into  the  Book  of  Revelation  and  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  both  of  which  come  to  us  under  the  name  of 
St.  John.  But  before  this  consummation  was  reached, 
a  new  Law  given  by  Jesus  of  Nazareth  found  expres- 
sion in  the  Gospels  termed  synoptic ;  and  a  fresh  order 
of  Prophets  commented  on  it  in  the  Apostles'  Letters. 
Seventy  or  eighty  years  after  our  Lord's  Ascension  the 
whole  was  finished.  Its  acknowledgment  and  reduc- 
tion into  a  Canon  occupied  the  best  part  of  a  hundred 

^  Vide  supra  on  Book  of  Daniel,  121 ;  and  Vigouroux,  i.  119-44. 

144 


THE  LIVING  GOSPEL  HS 

years.  And  some  portions  were  disputed  by  particu- 
lar Churches  long  afterwards.  Could  we  observe  the 
sequence  of  time,  it  would  from  a  critical  point  of 
view  be,  perhaps,  the  more  expedient.  But  as  the 
Gospels  did  not  take  their  origin  from  the  Epistles, 
but  were  independent  of  them, — and  since  the  Evan- 
gelists reproduce  the  direct  evidence  of  those  who  had 
known  Christ  and  lived  with  Him, — in  following  the 
New  Testament  book  by  book  we  should  not  be  un- 
faithful to  histoiy. 

Critical  Questions  of  the  New  Testament. — Book 
by  book  ?  Yet  we  must  also  consider  the  first  three 
Gospels  in  relation,  for  there  is  a  Synoptic  problem, 
analogous  to  the  double  and  treble  strains  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch,  which  we  cannot  pass  over.  The  Johannine 
problem  is,  in  point  of  time,  the  latest ;  but  again  is 
practically  independent  of  the  Pauline,  which  breaks 
up  into  three  ;  and  for  what  is  left,  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  cannot  be  separated  from  St.  Luke,  the 
Catholic  Epistles  furnish  in  various  ways  an  appendix 
to  St.  Paul.  Should  we  use  the  term  deutero-canonical, 
or  "  antilegomena,"  it  will  be  understood  of  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  St.  James,  2  Peter,  i  and  2  St.  John,  the 
Epistle  of  St.  Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse.  Three  frag- 
ments come  under  this  head,  Mark  xvi.  9-20 ;  Luke 
xxii.  43,  44;  John  vii.  53-viii,  ii. 

The  Canon  and  the  Message. — The  Canon  of  Trent 
as  regards  the  New  Testament  is  not  disputed  by  any 
Church. 

Before  attempting  by  analysis  to  find  out  the  relation 
of  our  Gospels  to  one  another,  we  should  fix  in  our 
minds  the  external  evidence  which  authenticates  them. 
Such  evidence  cannot  lose  its  value ;  our  guesses  and 
comparisons  are  always  open  to  doubt. 

The  Gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  a  living 
message,  delivered  by  Him  to  the  Church,  and  by  the 
Church  to  mankind.  Its  instrument  is  preaching  ;  its 
power   is  conveyed   in   public   ordinances ;    the   New 

10 


146  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Testament  is  its  record.     Our  Saviour  wrote  nothing, 
neither  did   He  leave  a  command  to  write.     All  the 
New  Testament  is  occasional ;  in  its  parts  we  register 
no  union  of  efforts  or  synodal  action  ;  and  except  so 
far  as  SS.  Matthew,  Mark,  andi  Luke  have  embodied  a 
"  common  view  "  (synopsis)  in  their  narratives,  the  col- 
lecHdh  is  made  up  of  separate  works,  "as  if  casually 
and  by  accident".     They  ever  suppose  an  oral  teach- 
ing enforced  by  authority,  to  which  must  be  referred 
the  hints,  allusions,  passing  glimpses,  due  at  once  to 
reverence   and    familiar   knowledge,    that  we  meet    in 
pages  so  little  resembling  the  treatises  of  philosophers. 
Our  New  Testament  is  not  a  scientific  manual,  nor  a 
Law-book  with  its  decrees  in  order ;  and,  of  course,  it 
did  not  come  into  existence  before  the  Christian  society 
was  founded,  neither  had  it  currency  as  a  thing  apart 
from  the  Apostles  and  their  successors.     Even  St.  Paul 
grounds  his  doctrine  on  tradition  and  agreement  with 
the  Twelve  as  represented  by  SS.  Peter,  James,  and 
John  (i  Cor.  xi.  23;  Gal.  ii.  2  ;  i  Tim.  vi.  20);  much 
more  would  this  be  the  duty  of  men  who  were  not 
Apostles,  such  as  Mark  and  Luke.     The  conclusion, 
allowed  on  eveiy  side,  is  supremely  important.     We 
take  our  Gospels  from  the  Church,  as  having  a  sacred 
because   a   collective    approval, — documents    certainly 
inspired,  but  no  less  written  according  to  the  mind  of 
that  religious  organism  in  which  they  grew  up,  by  which 
they  were  adapted  to  its  own  needs  and  opportunities. 
Do  we   ask  who  was  the  editor   of  the  New  Testa- 
ment ?     There  is  but  one  answer  conceivable  ;  it  was 
the  Catholic  Church.^ 

Oral  Teaching  Came  First. — This  oral  teaching,  as 
might  be  expected,  fell  into  set  forms  very  early,  and 
was  committed  to  memoranda  which,  being  private, 
would  lay  stress  now  on  the  events,  and  again  on  the 
discourses,  associated  with    Christ.     St.   Luke  distin- 

iTertuU.,  De  Prascripi.,  19,  29;  Adv.  Marcion,  iv.  5. 


PA  PI  AS  147 

finishes  between  the  "narrative"  he  had  drawn  up  and 
the  "instruction"  Thcophilus  had  received  (i.  1-4). 
Previously  to  his  Gospel  "  many "  had  undertaken  a 
similar  task.  The  form  of  "  catechesis "  we  may  ob- 
serve in  Acts,  where  St.  Stephen  illustrates  how  the 
first  Christian  teachers  would  proceed,  establishing 
themselves  on  eye-witnesses,  above  all,  on  the  Apostles, 
who  were  ordained  for  that  purjx)se  (chap.  vii.).  Of 
written  Gospels  it  is  doubtful  if  any  trace  be  found  in 
St.  Paul  or  the  other  Epistles.  But  as  St.  Luke  had 
previous  narratives  in  view,  so,  it  is  generally  held,  had 
our  actual  St.  Matthew ;  various  modems  believe  that 
St.  Mark,  in  its  present  shape,  is  a  recension  of  earlier 
documents. 

Earliest  Witnesses — Papias. — Omitting  all  that  for 
a  while,  we  cannot  question  St.  John's  acquaintance 
with  our  synoptics  ;  which  throws  all  four  Gospels  back 
into  the  first  century  A.D.  Conjectures  bringing  them 
down  much  later  have  no  standing-ground,  so  that 
Harnack  terms  the  synoptics  Christian  palaeontology. 
In  Clement  Rom.  we  cannot  be  sure  of  allusions  to  any 
of  them  ;  but  as  many  as  thirteen  parallels  to  Mt.,  Mk., 
Lk.  are  offered  with  minute  verbal  differences.^  The 
first  undeniable  witness  in  point  of  time  outside  the 
New  Testament  is  Papias,  Bishop  of  Hierapolis  (born 
perhaps  85  A.D. ;  date  of  writing,  11 5-1 30?),  Papias  com- 
posed in  five  books  an  Exposition  of  the  Lord's  Logia, 
meaning  thereby  the  "  oracles "  of  Christ ;  and  he 
"set  them  forth,"  as  Eusebius  relates,  i.e.,  wrote  them 
down,  or,  it  may  be,  expounded  their  significance.  In 
doing  so,  he  turns  away  from  the  multitude  of  unau- 
thorised books  then  in  circulation,  and  gets  his  know- 
ledge through  those  who  had  been  conversant  with  our 
Lord's  disciples.  Among  such  was  John  "the  Elder". 
Eusebius  thought  this  John  could  not  be  the  Apostle, 
and  his  view  is  commonly  taken.     But  Irenaius  calls 

'  Lightfoot,  Clem.  Rom.,  ii.  516. 
10  * 


148  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Papias  the  "  hearer  of  John  and  companion  of  Polycarp," 
the  latter  being  well  known  to  the  Bishop  of  Lyons."^  ' 

St.  Jerome  repeats  the  statement  more  than  once. 
Perhaps  we  have  not  sufficiently  clear  data  on  which  to 
decide.  It  will  be  safer  if  we  go  with  Eusebius.  What 
is  actually  said  about  the  Gospels  by  Papias  in  the  frag- 
ments left  has  given  rise  to  endless  discussion.  It  seems 
to  iiin  literally  as  follows  :  "  Mark  having  been  the  inter- 
preter of  Peter,  as  many  things  as  he  repeated  (or  re- 
inembered)  he  set  down  accurately,  not  however  in 
order, — things  said  or  done  by  Christ.  For  he  (Mark) 
was  not  a  hearer  of  the  Lord,  nor  had  he  followed 
Him,  but  later  on,  as  I  said,  Peter,  who  adapted  his 
teachings  to  the  occasion,  but  did  not  make  a  regular 
series  of  the  Lord's  words  (or  oracles) ;  so  that  Mark 
committed  no  fault,  writing  down  some  tilings  as  he 
{i.c.  Peter)  taught  them  from  memory  ;  for  about  one 
point  he  was  very  careful,  not  to  leave  out  anything  he 
had  heard,  or  to  speak  falsehood."  And  again, "  Matthew 
composed  the  oracles  in  the  Hebrew  dialect,  and  every 
one  interpreted  (or  translated)  them  as  he  was  able ". 
Of  Luke  and  John  it  is  not  certain  whether  Papias 
spoke  at  all.  Yet  he  alludes  to  the  First  Epistle  of 
John ;  we  cannot  imagine  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  was 
not  extant  when  he  wrote,  or  was  unknown  in  his 
neighbourhood ;  and  great  modern  authorities  hold 
that  Eusebius  merely  cut  short  his  quotations  from 
the  bishop  whom,  as  being  a  millenarian,  he  despised. 
The  suggestion  is  thrown  out  that  St.  John's  Gospel, 
though  in  use,  had  not  yet  attained  canonical  rank  be- 
yond Ephesus  ;  or  not  everywhere.^ 

St.  Justin  Martyr,  Tatian  and  Theophilus. — Justin 
Martyr  (date  of  evidence,  145-149)  is  mentioned  next. 
He  distinguishes  between  oral  teaching  and  writing. 
In  his  First  Apology  we  find,  "As  those  have  taught  who 

1  Iren.,  v.  33. 

-  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  iii.  39.  See  generally  on  Papias,  Bonaccorsi,  Tre 
Primi  Vangeli,  54-68  ;  Mgr.  Barnes  in  yourn.  of  Theol.  Studies,  1905. 


JUSTIN—TATIAN  I49 

rrcordcd  all  things  about  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ "  ;  and 
he  speaks  of  the  "  Memoirs  composed  by  the  A[X)stles 
which  arc  called  Gospels "  ;  and  tells  us  that  "  on  the 
day  called  Sunday  the  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles  or 
the  writings  of  the  prophets  are  read  ".  From  these 
Memoirs  he  quotes  the  facts  of  our  Lord's  life ;  the 
sayings  given  agree  twice  with  Matthew  and  twice  with 
Luke.  His  adversary,  the  Jew  Trypho,  alludes  to  the 
"  Gospel  so-called  "  ;  whenever  writing  is  mentioned  in 
this  Dialogue  it  refers  chiefly  to  St.  Matthew — the 
"  Hebrew "  volume  of  Papias.  Justin  appears  to  lay 
great  stress  on  our  St.  Luke.  Another  passage  in  the 
Dialogue  with  Trypho  refers  to  and  seems  to  quote 
the  "  Memoirs  of  Peter,"  which  cannot  in  the  middle  of 
.second  century  well  be  understood  except  of  our  St. 
Mark.  The  apocryphal  "  Gospel  of  Peter  "  would  not 
be  among  those  read  in  Church  on  Sunday.  Further- 
more, Justin  names  "  John  one  of  the  Apostles  of 
Christ  "  as  author  of  the  Apocalypse  ;  and  has  expres- 
sions concerning  "  the  Word,"  and  "  the  only-begotten 
of  the  Father  "  which  point  to  our  Fourth  Gospel,^  This 
probability  (if  it  is  not  rather  a  certitude)  has  been  much 
strengthened  by  the  late  recovery  of  Tatian's  Diatcs- 
sargn  (whether  in  original  condition  is  disputed),  which 
combines  into  a  single  narrative  the  four  Evangelists. 
Tatian  (150-180  A.D.,  period  of  his  activity)  was  Justin's 
immediate  follower,  an  Assyrian  who  knew  Greek,  and 
who  founded  a  sect  of  his  own,  the  Encratitcs.  His 
work  bears  witness  to  the  universal  recognition  in  his 
time  of  the  Gospels  as  we  have  them  now.  And  his 
Apology,  an  earlier  Catholic  production,  clearly  imi- 
tates the  opening  of  St.  John,  while  in  another  place  it 
borrows  from  the  First  Johannine  Epistle.  Add  the 
witness  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth  (160J,  who  alludes  to- 
falsifications  then  inflicted  on  the  "  Lord's  Scriptures  ".^ 

'  Justin,  M.,  I  Apol.,  65,  67  ;  Ccmtr.  Tryph.,  go,  103, 106 ;  on  Apoc, 
Tryph.,  81.     E.  Bi.,  "  Gospels,"  1820,  for  other  references. 

-Tatian,  Diatess.  (Ante-Nicene  Libr.).  For  Dionys.  Cor.,  Euseb., 
iv.  23. 


ISO  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Theophilus,  sixth  Bishop  of  Antioch  (about  i8o?), 
declares  that  "the  doctrines  of  the  Prophets  and  the 
Gospels  are  consentient,  because  all  spoke  being  filled 
with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God ".  And  again,  "  These 
things  the  sacred  Scriptures  teach  and  all  the  inspired 
among  whom  John  says,  In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word  ".  St.  Jerome  mentions  a  harmony  of  the  Four 
Gospels  from  his  hand,  now  lost. 

Pseudo- Barnabas — Ignatius  of  Antioch. — Testi- 
monies disputed  are  to  be  found  in  Epistle  of  Barnabas, 
who  seems  to  quote  from  St.  Matthew,  with  the  formula, 
"  as  it  is  written  "  ;  in  Clementine  Homily  ;  and  in  St. 
Ignatius  to  the  Ephesians,  Smyrn^eans,  Philadelphians, 
Romans.  It  can  hardly  be  denied  that  the  Churches 
addressed  by  the  Martyr  had  in  some  shape  Gospel- 
writings  ;  and  his  language  is  best  understood  by  taking 
it  in  that  sense.  For  he,  like  Papias,  glories  in  a  living 
tradition  which  he  contrasts  with  "  archives  "  or  docu- 
ments, and  those  not  of  the  Old  Testament  alone.  We 
may  say  that  he  "recognised  Matthew  and  probably 
Mark  but  not  Luke".  He  has  one  striking  resem- 
blance to  John.^  It  has  even  been  held  that  his  Letters 
"  abundantly  show  "  an  assimilation  to  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel in  doctrine  and  language.  In  like  manner  the 
Didache,  which  Harnack  derives  from  Ep.  of  Barnabas, 
but  which  is  at  any  rate  very  early,  is  "  saturated,"  ac- 
cording to  B.  Weiss,  "  with  the  thought  and  spirit  of 
St.  John  ".^ 

Testimony  of  Heretics. — From  Tatian  it  would  have 
been  natural  to  look  back  on  the  older  heretics,  whose 
dealings  with  our  Gospels  lend  powerful  aid  to  their 
authenticity.  Basilides,  for  instance,  gave  out  that  he 
was  a  disciple  of  St.  Matthew,  and  his  period  according 
to  Eusebius  falls  under  Hadrian  (i  17-138).  He  com- 
posed four  and  twenty  books  on  the  Gospel,  and  in 
fragments  which  have  come  down  to  us  refers  certainly 

1  Lightfoot,  Igitat.,  in.  520,  for  Script,  references. 
'•'Rose,  Stndifs  on  (he  Gospels,  15,  17,  Eng.  Tr. 


THE  MURATORIAN  CANON  I  51 

to  Matthew,  Luke  and  John.  Valcntinus,  who  sur- 
vived into  the  episcopate  of  Anicetus  (140-155?),  was 
the  patriarch  of  many  Gnostic  sectaries ;  but  he  also 
makes  similar  allusions  in  what  is  left  from  his  volu- 
minous treatises.  Marcion,  still  better  known,  who 
preceded  him  (138),  by  mutilatinf;^  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Luke  and  accepting  ten  of  St,  Paul's  Epistles  while 
casting  aside  Titus,  Timothy,  and  Hebrews,  bears  wit- 
ness to  the  double  collection  then  in  being  from  which, 
with  a  knife  as  it  was  said,  he  contrived  to  get  his 
"  Gospel "  and  "  Apostolicon  ".^ 

Our  general  conclusion  must  be  that  towards  1 30  the 
Four  Evangelists  were  tending  to  unite  in  a  well-ascer- 
tained group  of  sacred  Scriptures,  and  that  controversy 
about  them  there  was  little  or  none,  except  on  the  part 
of  declared  heretics,  after  160  A.D. 

Muratorian  Fragment — First  Canon  of  N.  T. — Ex- 
plicit acknowledgment,  in  the  next  generation,  comes 
to  us  from  the  Muratorian  Fragment  (about  180-190) 
and  St.  Irenaeus.  The  Fragment,  discovered  by  Mura- 
tori  in  1740,  is  a  rude  Latin  translation  of  some  lost 
Greek  document,  perhaps  written  in  iambic  verse 
(memorial  verses  were  common,  as  now,  for  names  and 
numbers).  It  has  been  attributed  on  weighty  grounds 
to  Hippolytus,  the  most  eminent  of  scholars  and  writers 
at  Rome  between  180-220.  But  an  approximate  year 
is  fixed  in  the  Latin  itself,  which  speaks  of  Hermas  who 
"  wrote  the  '  Pastor '  quite  lately  in  our  times  in  the  city 
of  Rome,  his  brother  Pius  the  bishop  being  seated  in 
the  chair  of  the  Roman  Church  ".  St.  Pius,  according 
to  the  Papal  registers,  was  Pope  from  15S  to  167.  To 
carry  the  fragment  lower  than  200  would  be  unreason- 
able ;  in  any  case  it  gives  the  judgment  of  Roman 
authorities  who  lived  at  the  same  period  with  Irenjeus 
and  brings  us  down  to  Tertullian.  Its  intention  was  to 
separate  the  genuine  New  Testament  Scriptures  from 

^  Philosopliumcna,  6,  for  Basilid.,  and  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  iv.  7  ;  Iren.,  on 
Marc,  and  Valent.,  iii.  3,  4,  12,  and  repeatedly. 


152  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

apocryphal  works,  such  as  those  of  Valentinian,  Marcion, 
Basilides,  whom  it  names.  Did  it  also  strike  at  the 
Montanist  prophets?  The  point  is  disputed,  but  not 
unlikely. 

Its  first  lines  have  been  lost ;  they  acknowledged  St. 
Matthew,  and  an  unfinished  sentence  refers  undoubtedly 
to  St.  Mark,  "  at  which  he  was  present,  and  thus  he  set 
down  ".  Next  we  read,  "  thirdly  the  Book  of  the  Gospel 
according  to  Luke,"  who  is  called  "  that  physician  "  ;  we 
are  informed  that  he  wrote  according  to  the  "  mind  "  of 
St.  Paul  and  "  as  he  was  able  to  attain  ".  Then  follows, 
"  Fourth  of  the  Gospels,  of  John  and  his  disciples,"  with 
an  account  in  seven  lines  of  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  Evangelist  was  persuaded  to  write,  being  an 
eye-  and  ear-witness  of  our  Lord's  miracles.  We  shall 
return  to  these  lines  when  discussing  the  Johannine 
problem  ;  and  to  the  rest  of  the  Fragment  as  occasion 
demands.^ 

Irenaeus  of  Lyons. — Lastly,  Irenaeus  opposes  to 
Gnostic  heresy  the  tradition  which  was  guarded  by  the 
bishops  ;  and  to  the  multitude  of  pretended  revelations 
"  the  Gospel  in  its  fourfold  shape,  held  together  by  One 
Spirit ".  There  can  be  neither  more  nor  less  than  four 
Gospels,  he  says,  and  he  renders  mystical  reasons  which 
imply  that  the  collection  had  long  been  familiar  to  all 
Catholics.  This  remarkable  man,  who  was  a  friend  of 
Polycarp,  born  in  Asia  Minor,  bishop  in  Gaul,  on  in- 
timate terms  with  the  Popes  of  his  day,  and  a  pilgrim 
to  Rome,  gathers  up  in  his  single  person  the  Church's 
teaching.  And  he  considers  it  refutation  enough  of 
certain  heretics  to  observe:  "they  do  not  admit  that 
view  which  is  according  to  John's  Gospel  ".  He  says 
that  "  Matthew  wrote  his  Gospel  among  the  Hebrews 
when  Peter  and  Paul  were  preaching  at  Rome  and 
founding  the  Church".  He  calls  Mark  "the  disciple 
and  interpreter  of  Peter " ;  while  Luke  was  "  the  com- 

1  Original  of  Murat.  Frag,  in  Loisy,  Ca7i.  N.  T. ,  94-102;  Lightfoot, 
Clem.  Rom.,  ii.  407;   Westcott,  Canon. 


THE  VERSIONS  I  S3 

panion  of  Paul"  and  set  out  in  writing  the  Evangel 
which  his  master  preached.  John,  "the  disciple  of  the 
Lord,  who  reclined  on  Jesus'  bosom,  wrote  his  Gospel 
at  Ephesus,"  to  refute  "  Cerinthus  and  the  sect  of 
Nicholas  ".  These  writings  had  been  left  to  the  Chris- 
tian society  by  their  authors,  and  "so  great  is  this 
security  touching  the  Gospels  that  heretics  themselves 
bear  witness  to  them,  and  every  one  who  quits  us  en- 
deavours by  means  of  them  to  support  his  own  doctrine  "} 

Confirmed  by  the  Versions. — A  strong  confirmation 
of  the  early  age  and  ready  acceptance  of  our  Gospels  is 
derived  from  the  Syriac  version  made  in  the  second 
century  and  containing  all  four.  It  is  more  ancient 
than  the  Latin  (African  or  Roman),  but  this  again  could 
not  Kave  been  executed  and  read  in  the  Western 
Church  until  some  considerable  time  after  the  Canon 
was  firmly  established.  Yet  in  Tertullian's  age,  as  is 
clear  from  his  Treatise  against  Marcion,  no  Catholic  or 
Montanist  doubted  the  inspiration  of  the  four  Evan- 
gelists. So  that  critical  problems  as  regards  them, 
fairly  stated,  do  not  touch  the  second  centuiy  at  all. 
For  from  St.  John  at  Ephesus  (about  lOO  A.D.)  to  the 
Fathers  and  versions  of  200  A.D.  there  is  no  break  in 
the  evidence.  That  St.  John,  or  the  editor  of  his 
Epistle  and  Gospel,  was  acquainted  with  our  Synoptics 
can  be  shown  from  his  work,  and  equally  that  he  "  bore 
witness  to  their  truth,"  as  Eusebius  observes  in  a  striking 
passage. -' 

Relation  of  Gospels  to  Catechesis  and  Each  Other. 
— But  in  what  relation  of  date  or  pedigree  the  Synoptics 
stand  to  one  another,  allowing  all  three  to  have  ori- 
ginated before  the  year  90,  is  a  more  involved  question. 
Since  there  never  was  a  dogmatic  resolution  of  its  per- 
plexities, we  may  conclude  that  opinions  are  free  within 

Mren.,  iii.  i,  3,  10,  11,  per  totum ;  for  summary  of  citations  from 
N.  T.  in  early  writers  between  93-233,  see  Vigouroux-Bacuez,  M.  B., 
ii.  62. 

'^Euseb.,  H.  E.,  iii.  24. 


154  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

very  wide  bounds.  At  all  events,  the  true  answer,  could 
we  reach  it,  would  be  an  equation  of  a  high  order.  How 
are  these  Gospels  related  to  the  catechetical  teaching  that 
preceded  and  went  along  with  them  ?  How  to  the  many, 
public  or  private,  endeavours  to  set  down  that  teaching 
in  written  words  ?  How,  again,  does  each  complete 
form,  as  we  have  it,  stand  to  its  parallel  ?  Moreover, 
abstruse  as  the  inquiry  is  in  itself,  we  cannot  bring  to 
bear  on  it  external  testimonies,  which  simply  do  not 
exist.  Modem  conjecture  has  invented  documents  in 
every  stage  of  formation,  primitive  and  derived  ;  but  all 
on  grounds  for  which  our  present  Gospels  are  called  up 
as  witnesses.  The  result  may  be  imagined.  No  theory 
holds  the  field ;  each,  in  turn  put  foru'ard  with  con- 
fidence and  assailed  with  acrimony,  is  left  to  its  original 
defenders  or  lost  in  some  new  combination.  A  verdict 
of  "  not  proven "  in  these  matters  is  surely  equivalent 
to  a  confession  that  the  data  we  hold  are  inadequate. 

The  Older  Views. — Hence,  the  wisest  course  would  be, 
it  seems,  to  follow  such  tradition  as  there  is.  The  order 
of  our  New  Testament  (which,  we  take  it,  is  not  later 
than  Papias,  140,  or  some  previous  date)  was  probably 
intended  for  an  order  of  time.  Except  Clement  Alex., 
the  Fathers  unanimously  held  with  Athanasius  and 
Chrysostom, — Eusebius  even  takes  it  for  granted, — 
that  Matthew  wrote  first,  and  in  Hebrew,  i.e.  Aramaic. 
The  Alexandrian  Chronicle  and  Nicephorus  C.  P.  give 
the  date  as  fifteen  j-ears  after  our  Lord's  Ascension, 
which  would  be  44  A.D.  This  era  is  connected  with 
what  Christians  termed  the  Dispersion  of  the  Apostles, 
an  event  prescribed,  as  they  thought,  by  the  Saviour, 
and  occurring  in  twelve  years  from  His  last  command- 
ments (Mt.  xxviii.  18-20).  When  the  Greek  version  of 
Matthew  was  put  forth,  and  by  whom,  remained  an 
inquiry.  St.  Mark,  according  to  Irena^us,  wrote  "after 
the  departure"  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  whether  from 
Rome  or  from  this  earthly  life  the  words  do  not  clearly 
state  ;  but   Eusebius  quotes  also  Clement  Alex.,  who 


OUR  CERTITUDES  155 

declares  that  St.  Peter  approved  of  Mark's  writing, — 
an  opinion  generally  adopted  in  the  Church.  Our 
second  Gospel  would,  therefore,  have  been  compo.sed 
towards  70_A.I).  What  interval  separates  from  it  St^ 
Luke?  His  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (for  it  is  only  recent 
and  guess-work  critics  who  deny  that  he  wrote  them) 
were  usually  thought  to  have  indicated  their  time  by 
the  last  verses,  which  left  St.  Paul  teaching  in  Rome 
without  molestation,  hence  before  the  terrible  persecu- 
tion under  Nero  in  64.  His  Gospel  is  certainly  later 
than  some  at  least  of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul ;  how 
much  later  no  one  can  determine.  Those  moderns 
(Harnack,  etc.)  who  refuse  to  believe  that  our  Lord  saw 
in  detail  the  ruin  of  Jerusalem,  naturally  bring  down 
the  apocalyptic  discourses  in  the  Third  Gospel  as  low 
as  90  or  95.  Otherwise,  a  date  between  70  and  80 
would  allow  for  the  various  attempts  at  a  narrative  to 
which  the  Preface  refers.  And  St.  John  who  wrote 
nothing  till  extreme  old  age,  says  Eusebius,  ends  the 
first  century  with  his  Spiritual  Gospel.^ 

Dogmatic  Certitudes. — If  we  hold  a  position  on 
these  lines,  as  St.  Augustine  did  more  or  less,  difficul- 
ties will  by  no  means  be  cleared  away,  but  we  shall 
keep  the  ancient  order,  and  we  need  not  trouble  about 
"  sources  of  sources  "  to  be  extracted  by  critical  discern- 
ment from  the  Synoptics  before  us.  The  only  Gospels 
stamped  with  approval  by  the  Church  are  those  in 
our  actual  New  Testament.  If  others  afforded  them 
materials,  we  cannot  now  distinguish  the  originals  from 
the  accretions,  neither  is  it  incumbent  on  us  to  do  so. 
What  we  possess  and  acknowledge  is  an  inspired  set  of 
documents,  known  as  such  at  the  earliest  period  when 
a  collection  was  made.  For  all  religious  demands,  it  is 
enough ;  otherwise  Providence  would  have  left  in  the 
apostolic  succession  lights  whereby  to  trace  out  the  re- 
lations of  our  Evangelists  to  one  another  and  to  the 

'  Vigouroux- Bacuez,  iii.  136 -go;  common  views,  Batiffol,  Six 
Lefons  sttr  Ics  Evang.,  43,  51,  6i.     Blass  against  Harnack,  Acta  Apost. 


156  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

oral  preaching  which  they  embody.  The  "synoptic 
problem"  is  one,  not  of  faith,  but  of  scholarship. 

It  may  be  outlined  thus  : — 

The  Synoptic  Problem. — Our  Lord  and  His  Apostles 
taught  in  Aramaic.  But  Jews  of  the  Dispersion  spoke 
and  read  the  "  Common  Dialect,"  or  Hellenistic  Greek, 
as  the  LXX.  proves.  Greek  was  familiar  to  the  foreign 
synagogues  in  Jerusalem  ;  St.  Stephen  argued  in  it,  and 
it  was  St.  Paul's  mother-tongue.  Thus  we  have  the 
curious  combination  of  Hebrew  thoughts  with  Greek 
words  of  which  the  LXX.  and  the  New  Testament 
offer  examples.  To  this  more  liberal  training  the 
Pharisees  were  opposed  at  all  times.  Now  Christians, 
as  we  learn  from  the  Acts  (vi.  i ,  9),  inherited  the  double 
tendency  which  from  of  old  had  led  to  differences  in 
religion  ;  and,  glancing  forward,  we  may  say  that  the 
exaggeration  of  the  Hebrew  brought  out  the  Ebionite, 
while  the  Hellenist  was  not  unlikely  if  he  followed  his 
own  devices  to  end  as  a  Gnostic.  Our  First  Gospel 
looks  in  one  direction,  our  Fourth  in  quite  another. 
The  general  movement  is  from  Old  Testament  prophecy 
to  New  Testament  theology.  Again,  St.  Luke  is  a 
Hellenist  in  scope,  diction,  and  spirit ;  St.  Matthew,  ad- 
dressing Jews  who  know  the  Scriptures,  argues  like  a 
Rabbi  from  minute  verbal  coincidences,  but  records  the 
scathing  language  in  which  Jesus  condemns  Scribes  and 
Pharisees,  thereby  indicating  a  stage  of  controversy  when 
the  influence  wielded  by  Jerusalem  had  not  yet  fallen 
extinct.  The  First  Gospel  is  not  Ebionite,  for  it  affirms 
that  Jesus  alone  knows  the  Father  and  can  reveal  Him 
— in  other  words,  is  truly  the  Logos  (xi.  27).  But 
except  in  brief  passages  it  does  not  come  near  the 
Johannine  expressions.  Though  certainly  never  Ebion- 
ite, St.  Matthew  is  Jewish  in  tone  and  temper.  St. 
Mark,  who  betrays  no  tendency  of  this  kind,  never 
quotes  the  Prophets  or  Old  Testament  and  stands  put- 
side  the  sphere  of  Hellenistic  as  of  Hebraic  solicitude  ; 
he  is  content  to  show  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  by  His 


MARK  AS  ORIGINAL  157 

divine  works.  To  fix  our  memory  of  these  characters, 
we  may  imagine  with  ancient  notices  that  St.  Matthew 
wrote  for  his  brethren  in  Antioch ;  St.  Mark  in  Rome; 
St.  Luke  in  Achaia  or  Macedonia,  to  which  latter 
province  he  belonged,  although  another  theory  supposes 
him  to  be  a  native  of  Antioch.  Yet  here  the  problem 
comes  at  once  into  view.  For  these  Evangelists,  so 
unlike  in  their  aim,  so  divided  by  circumstances,  ought 
to  be  independent.  But  they  have  left  us  three  several 
narratives  which  agree  in  the  main  lines  and  are  con- 
stantly identical  in  their  wording,  while  not  reducible 
within  any  frame-work  which  would  hinder  variations 
in  that  agreement  and  peculiarities  special  to  each. 

A  Prevalent  Theory. — Perhaps  we  had  better  state 
the  conclusions  at  which  eminent  writers,  Catholics 
among  them,  have  arrived.  Allowing  for  points  on 
which  unanimity  is  not  to  be  expected,  it  is  a  wide- 
spread opinion:  (i)  that  our  synoptics  z'«  tJieir present 
form  were  composed  between  65  and  85  A.D. ;  (2)  that 
Mark  is  the  quasi-original  text  on  which  Mt.  and  Lk. 
proceeded  to  work  out  their  own  narrations ;  (3)  that 
Mt.  preceded  Lk.  by  some  years  ;  (4)  that  the  writer 
of  the  Third  Gospel,  who  has  many  affinities  with  the 
First,  altogether  independent  of  Mark,  nevertheless  did 
not  borrow  them  from  our  Matthew  as  we  now  have  it ; 
(5)  that  all  this  implies  the  existence  of  a  more  primi- 
ti^£.-Gospd  in  writing,  which  was  a, collection  of  our 
I,j2rd's  "oracles^"  (Logia)  composed  in  Aramaean  by 
the  Apostle  St.  Matthew,  known  at  least  by  hearsay  to 
Papias,  and  adapted  to  Judaizing  Christians  in  our 
actual  First  Gospel,  to  Roman  Christians  in  our  Second, 
t^  Hellenists  of  the  type  anticipated  by  St.  Stephen 
and  realised  by  St.  Paul,  in  our  Third. ^ 

Aramaic  Matthew  Earliest. — Observe  that  on  any 
view  St.  Matthew  comes  before  the  other  Evangelists 
in  his  Aramaean  original.     The  Greek  recension  called 

1  Batiffol,  S/^L^fows  ;  Bonaccorsi,  Tre  P/m/  Vangeli;  arguments 
against  primitive  Mk.  in  Vigouroux-Bacuez,  M.  B.,  iii.  156.    °    — ^ 


158  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

by  his  name  may  be  later  as  an  adaptation  ;  but  he  is 
present  in  it  everywhere  and  is  its  virtual  author.  St, 
Jerome  found  among  the  Nazarenes  af  Beroea  (Aleppo) 
a  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  which  he  translated 
into  Greek  and  Latin.  It  is  lost,  except  for  the  quota- 
tions which  he  has  made  from  it  in  his  works.  The 
great  scholar  was  inclined  to  look  upon  it  as  St.  Mat- 
thew's genuine  text ;  but  he  did  not  feel  confident,  and 
Tatter-day  critics  have  decided  in  the  negative.^  Por- 
tions were  also  discovered  (1887)  in  Egypt  of  the  so- 
called  Gospel  according  to  St.  Peter.  It  is  Docetic  in 
tendency,  spurious  beyond  a  doubt,  and  one  of  many 
which  were  circulated  after  100  A.D.- 
Jerusalem, Antioch,  Rome,  Ephesus. — Speaking 
broadly,  in  St.  Luke  we  possess  a  narrative  framed  on 
Greek  (i.e.  cultivated  Hellenistic)  models;  St.  Mark 
tells  us  the  incidents,  especially  the  works  of  power,  in 
our  Lord's  preaching ;  St.  Matthew  gives  the  divine 
Logia,  and  these  again  we  read  in  St.  Luke.  The  tradi- 
tion of  Mark  is  essentially  Petrine  ;  but  so  too  are  many 
things  in  the  First  Gospel,  derived  from  the  group 
which  surrounded  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles  in  Jeru- 
salem or  followed  him  to  Antioch.  Corresponding  with 
four  stages  of  Christian  development,  we  note  four 
historical  centres — Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Rome,  Ephesus 
— to  which  we  may  assign  our  four  Evangelists,  But 
the  currents,  as  we  see  from  previous  indications,  do 
not  flow  in  separate  channels.  They  all  start  from 
the  same  fountain-head,  a  catechetical  teaching  thrown 
speedily  into  the  shape  of  Logia,  represented  by  double 
and  treble  recensions,  open  to  treatment  for  purposes 
of  edification,  yet  sufificiently  controlled  by  the  Church 
to  prevent  pseudo-Gospels  from  winning  public  accept- 

'  Jerome,  Adv.  Pelacr.,  3. 

"^  Rose,  Studies  on  the  Gospels,  19-40,  Eng.  Tr,  P^re  Rose  criti- 
cises with  just  severity  (p.  31  seq.)  Harnack's  fanciful  view  of  the 
Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians.  On  this  and  other  apocryphal 
Gospels,  see  E.  Bi.  258-59. 


DETAILS  OF  SYNOPSIS  I  59 

ance.  Of  this  we  have  continual  proof  at  every  period. 
It  was  not  from  books,  however  sacred,  that  Papias 
learned  his  religion,  but  from  the  Elders  who  told  him 
what  had  been  said  by  "  Philip,  Thomas,  James,  John, 
and  other  disciples  of  the  Lord  ".  And  Ircna^us  repeats 
the  same  argument,  "  The  truth  was  not  given  by  letters 
but  by  the  living  vofce^Tand  "How  if  the  Apostles 
had  left  us  no  Scriptures?"  and  again,  "  To  which 
ordinance  many  Barbarian  nations  assent,  who  believe 
in  Christ,  having  salvation  written  in  their  hearts,  with- 
out paper  and  ink,  by  the  Holy  Spirit".^ 

Identities  and  Differences. — If  we  reckon  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  sections  in  our  Synoptics,  ninety-seven 
w^puldbe  common  in  various  degrees,  fifty-three  special. 
No  fewer  than  ^ixty-five  are  found  in  all  three.  Mt, 
and  Mk.  have  fifteen  more  between  them ;  Mt.  and  Lk. 
twelve;  Mk.  and  Lk.  five.  Of  the  particular  sections 
thirty-seven  belong  to  Lk.,  fourteen  to  Mt,  two  to  Mk. 
The  "synopsis  "  itself  goes  from  our  Lord's  baptism  by 
John  to  the  Passion.  Outside  it  we  find  the  genealogies, 
the  stoiy  of  Christ's  incarnation  and  birth,  different 
parables  and  discourses,  and  the  incidents  which 
followed  on  the  Resurrection.  To  explain  these  points 
in  detail  is  the  task  of  a  commentary.'^ 

^Euseb.  H.  E.,  iii.  39;  Iren..  iii.  4. 

"Loisy,  £j;ar»jO-.  Synopt.  (1908)  extreme  views  ;  Ermoni  in  Rev.  Bibl., 
1897,  pp.  83,  254;  Batiffol,  Six  Le(ons :  Bonaccorsi,  Tre  Vatigeli,  who 
gives  particulars  of  synopsis,  after  Reuss  and  Westcott,  8-19,  and  adopts 
a  solution  not  unlike  that  of  J.  Weiss,  164-66. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  FOU|RTH  GOSPEL  AND  ST.  JOHN. 

Voices  of  Tradition — By  all  Christian  schools,  ex- 
cept an  obscure  early  group  of  heretics  called  the  Alogi, 
our  Fourth  Gospel  with  its  three  appendages  and  the 
Apocalypse  was  held  to  be  the  writing  of  "  St,  John 
the  Divine  "  {i.e.  the  Theologian).  This  St.  John  was 
identified  with  the  Apostle,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  chosen 
like  Peter  and  James  for  an  intimate  companion  by  the 
Lord  Jesus.  The  Book  of  Revelation  purports  to 
have  come  from  the  pen  of  a  certain  John  who  suffered 
for  the  "  word  of  God,"  and  was  in  the  isle  of  Patmos 
when  he  received  his  prophetic  message  (i.  9).  This 
allusion  (coupled  with  a  story  in  Tertullian  of  the 
Apostle's  escape  from  death  in  Rome)  led  commen- 
tators to  date  the  volume  about  95  A.D.  under  a  perse- 
cution which  Domitian  had  begun,  "  a  sample  of  Nero 
in  his  cruelty,"  says  the  African  apologist.  In  the 
Canon,  from  at  least  150,  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  had  its 
place  assured,  witness  Tatian's  Diatessaron,  Irenasus,  the 
Muratorian  Fragment,  the  Syriac  New  Testament.  It 
was  never  afterwards  called  in  question.  Eusebius  con- 
siders its  Apostolic  authority  as  a  matter  of  course. 
Twelve  centuries  later,  the  Council  of  Trent  reckons  the 
four  Gospels  "  according  to  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  and 
John,"  and  canonises  the  "  Apocalypse  of  John  the 
Apostle".  But  when  the  Higher  Criticism  took  these 
matters  in  hand,  its  judgments  were  various  and  con- 
flicting. 

What  the  Gospel  Implies. — Our  Evangelists  do  not 
reveal  their  own  names.     But  the  Apocalypse  is  signed 

160  ' 


PA  PI  AS  AND  POLYCARP  iGl 

by  its  writer,  "  who  hath  given  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ 
what  things  soever  he  hath  seen  "  (i,  2)^  a  remarkable 
expression  which  we  meet  once  more  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  There  wc  read  of  "  the  disciple  whom  Jesus 
loved  ".  He  is  one  of  the  Twelve,  and  yet  in  the  whole 
book  his  name  does  not  occur.  Lists  in  other  Gospels 
affirm  that  John  was  a  member  of  the  sacred  college 
(Mt.  X.  2  ;  Mk.  iii.  17  ;  Lk.  vi.  14) ;  but  here  he  is  not 
mentioned,  an  act  of  reticence  which  speaks  for  itself 
(xxi.  2).  Again  we  read,  "  He  that  saw  it  hath  given 
testimony,  and  his  testimony  is  true  ".  This  Gospel  is 
noted  for  its  frequent  repetition  of  phrases,  which  seems 
characteristic  of  old  age  ;  accordingly  in  the  last  chapter, 
which  reads  like  an  appendix,  the  declaration  meets  us 
a  second  or  third  time,  "  This  is  that  disciple  who  giveth 
testimony  of  these  things  and  hath  written  these  things, 
and  we  know  that  his  testimony  is  true  ".  Putting  all 
such  statements  together,  it  would  be  an  evasion  if  we 
said  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  does  not  claim  St.  John 
the  Apostle  as  its  author.  An  Eastern,  not  a  Western 
author,  doubtless  ;  but  the  beloved  disciple,  one  of  the 
Twelve,  an  eye-witness  of  the  Passion,  last  survivor 
from  the  Apostolic  College.' 

Papias  and  Polycarp. — In  Eusebius  we  learn  that 
Papias  "  made  use  of  testimonies  from  the  First  Epistle 
of  John ".  And  Polycarp  writes  to  the  Philippians, 
"  Whosoever  doth  not  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come 
in  the  flesh,  is  antichrist".  The  quotation  tells  us  its 
origin  (i  Jn.  iv,  2-4);  Polycarp  goes  on,  "Whosoever 
confesseth  not  the  witness  of  the  cross,  is  from  the 
devil.  And  whosoever  doth  tamper  with  the  oracles 
(^logia)  of  the  Lord,  after  his  own  desires,  and  affirms 
neither  resurrection  nor  judgment,  he  is  the  first-born 
of  Satan."  -'  This  highly  significant  passage,  directed 
against  a  form  of  Docetism  which  made  Christ  another 
than  Jesus,  and  denied    His   Incarnation  with  all  its 

1  Jn.  vi.  67  ;  xiii.  23  ;  xix.  26-35  '<  '"^-  2,  24;  xxi.  7,  20,  24. 
*  Polycarp  to  Philippians,  7;  Lightfoot,  Ignat.,  iii.  in  loc. 

II 


1 62  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

consequences,  takes  us  back  to  the  witness  of  "  water 
and  blood"  in  St.  John's  Gospel  (xix.  34,  35)  and  the 
teaching  founded  on  it  in  the  Epistle  (i  Jn.  v.  6,  8). 
The  strong  words,  "  from  the  devil "  and  "  the  first-born 
of  Satan,"  echo   St.  John  viii.  44,  and  remind  us  of 
Apoc.  ii.,  iii.  (the  "  synagogue,"  and  "  depths  "  of  Satan), 
as  well  as  of  Polycarp's   own  rebuke  to  Marcion  in 
Rome.     Irenaeus  relates,  as  we  saw  above,  that  Poly- 
carp  knew  St.  John  and  was  taught  by  him  concernmg 
"the  word  of  life".      But,  anyhow,  we  can  judge  for 
ourselves   that  the  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  who  was   old 
enough  to  have  been  ordained  by  the  Apostle, — and  so 
the  story  went, — deals  with  these  Scriptures  exactly  as 
we  should  do  ;  in  his  eyes  they  are  inspired.     Now  the 
Johannine  Epistles  form  an  homogeneous  group ;  and 
the   First   begins  with  a   solemn   appeal  against  the 
fancies  of  Docetism,  uttered  by  a  witness  who  had  been 
familiar  with  our  Lord,  "  That  which  we  beheld  and  our 
hands  handled  concerning  the  word  of  life  .  .  .  declare 
we  unto  you"  (i.  1-3  ;  compare  Luke  xxiv.  39  after  the 
Resurrection).     Such  statements  could  be  made  only 
by  one  of  the  first  disciples,  and  who  among  them  sur- 
vived when  the  Letter  was  written  ?    Certainly  John  the 
son  of  Zebedee ;  but  we  are  acquainted  with  no  other. 

Occasion  of  First  Epistle  of  John — Cerinthus. — 
Futhermore :  readers  without  a  theory  will  perceive 
in  the  Epistles  and  the  Fourth  Gospel  resemblances 
so  marked  as  to  suggest  their  kinship ;  sixteen  verbal 
references  are  pointed  out  in  the  Latin  Bible,  and  the 
likeness  of  tone  and  drift  cannot  be  overlooked.  There 
is  an  undoubted  resemblance  between  the  opening  sec- 
tion of  the  Gospel  and  the  first  chapter  of  the  Epistle. 
All  this  teaching  strikes  at  a  heresy  which  was  prelusive 
of  Valentinus,  yet  more  or  less  Judaic.  The  Vulgate 
reading  of  i  Jn.  iv.  3  gives  us  its  keynote,  "J^very 
spirit  which  dissolveth  Jesus  is  not  of  God  ".  Again, 
"Many  deceivers  are  gone  forth  .  .  .  even  they  that 
confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  cometh  in  the  fl.esh"  (2, 


JEWISH  DOCETICS  163 

Jn,  7),  to  which  Oriental  delusion  the  writer  opposes 
his  testimony,  "  This  is  he  that  cometh  by  water  and 
blood,  even  Jesus  Christ  "  (i  Jn.  v.  6),  with  its  consoling 
implication,  "  Every  one  that  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  is  begotten  of  God"  ("compare  Jn.  i.  12,  13  ;  iii, 
3,  5,  6).  Once  more,  we  have  been  told  by  Irensus  that 
St.  John  had  a  public  altercation  with  Cerinthus,  who 
held  one  form  of  Docetism,  and  that  the  Apostle  in- 
tended hisGospel  partly  as  an  answer  to  him.^  Cerin- 
thus, if  we  may  trust  Epiphanius,  was  by  birth  a  Jew, 
but  he  lived  and  taught  in  Asia  Minor,  perhaps  even 
at  Ephesus,  the  abode  of  St.  John  from  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  till  his  decease  under  Trajan  (after  98  A.D.). 
The  language  of  our  Johannine  documents  may  be  ap- 
plied without  much  straining,  to  this  aberration,  which 
mingled  Judaic  and  Gnostic  elements  confusedly.  It 
would  seem,  therefore,  to  be  made  out  that  St.  John's 
Gospel  and  Epistles  stand  or  fall  together ;  that  he 
who  wrote  them  claimed  to  be  an  Apostle  of  our  Lord ; 
that  he  lived  in  the  same  neighbourhood  with  the  son 
of  Zebedee  and  at  the  same  time  ;  that  between  his 
phraseology  and  certain  portions  of  the  Apocalypse  a 
likeness  may  be  discerned  ;  that  Polycarp,  who  carried 
on  the  orthodox  tradition  he  had  imbibed  from  St.  John 
himself,  or  from  his  immediate  companions,  regarded 
the  Epistle  i  Jn.  as  Holy  Scripture  ;  that  Papias  did 
so  too ;  and  that  hence  the  Gospel  is  genuine  no  less 
than  canonical.  Whether  we  judge  the  three  Letters 
to  be  imitated  from  the  Gospel,  or  the  First  be  an 
introduction  written  along  with  it,  or  by  another  hand, 
these  conclusions  remain. 

Early  Docetism. — From  the  phenomena  of  Docetism 
no  difficulty  arises,  but  rather  a  confirmation.  That  false 
doctrine  (which,  however,  proves  that  the  Divinity  of 
Christ  was  accepted  from  the  earliest  epoch)  showed 
it's  tendencies  during  the  life  of  St.   Paul,  who  writes 


^  C/.  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  iii.  28. 
I  I  * 


1 64  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

to  the  Colossians  against  a  Jewish  version  of  it.  It 
occupied  the  dying  thoughts  of  the  Martyr  Ignatius. 
Some  lines  of  it  are  discoverable  in  the  Great  Mani- 
festation attributed  to  Simon  Magus,  a  work  of  the 
closing  first  century.  The  Apostle,  who  seemed  to  be 
living  on  as  if  to  meet  the  Second  Advent,  might  well 
term  it  an  Antichrist  and  recount  the  history  of  our 
Lord  which  combined  in  one  the  glory  of  the  Only 
Begotten  and  the  witness  of  the  cross.  But  he  does 
not  anticipate  forms  in  his  time  not  yet  arisen.  "No 
traces  can  as  yet  be  found  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,"  says 
Dr.  E.  A,  Abbott,  "  of  the  great  and  elaborated  systems 
such  as  were  developed  by  Valentinus  and  others  after 
140  A.D."  Thus  our  Gospel  agrees  with  the  Ignatian 
Epistles  in  combating  a  rudimentary  apparition  (not 
perhaps  in  both  cases  the  same)  of  this  all-pervading 
heresy,  then  in  its  middle  stage  between  100  and  no. 
Why  should  we  disturb  a  tradition  so  intelligible  and 
so  consistent  with  itself }  "  That  the  Gospel  was  not 
written  later  than  circa  no,"  says  Harnack,  "is  an 
assured  historical  truth."  And  he  assigns  to  115  the 
Epistle  of  Polycarp  quoted  above. ^ 

Justin  Martyr — Heracleon — Theodotus. — Assum- 
ing this  position  of  the  German  scholar,  we  cannot 
suppose  that  Justin  Martyr  who  has  three  quotations, 
including  the  terms  "  First-born  of  God "  and  "  the 
Logos,"  which  point  to  St.  John,  did  not  receive  the 
book  itself  If  he  "could  not  help  accepting  that  much 
of  the  Johannine  doctrine  "  in  the  year  1 50,  is  it  credible 
that  he  would  have  quarrelled  with  Johannine  language, 
yet  employ  the  terms  just  quoted  ?  As  unmistakable 
is  the  reference  in  i  Apol.,  61  to  Jn.  iii.  3,  about  baptism. 
Justin,  however,  had  to  bear  in  mind  the  perversions  of 
Valentinus,  which  his  disciples  would  be  sure  to  imi- 
tate. For  they  exploited  St.  John's  teaching  to  "  .show 
forth  their  system  of  conjugations,"  as  Irenaeus  remarks. 

^  Lightfoot,  Colossians;  Ignat.,  i.  381,  440. 


TATIAN—MURATORIAN  CANON  1 65 

Among  them  Heraclcon  afterwards  held  a  distinguished 
place,  and  Origan  has  preserved  some  portions  of  his 
commentary  on  the  Fourth  Gospel ;  while  another, 
Theodotus,  in  Clement  Alex.,  quotes  St.  John  twenty- 
.si.x  times.  This  general  state  of  things  will  account  for 
Justin's  method  in  arguing  with  Trypho  the  Jew.  It  is 
not  pretended  that  the  Christian  apologist  had  never 
heard  of  our  Gospel.  His  follower  Tatian  certainly 
quotes  it  in  his  Apology,  "This  is  what  that  saying 
means,  '  the  darkness  doth  not  comprehend  the  light,' 
and  again,  'All  things  are  by  Him,  and  without  Him 
hath  not  been  made  anything,'"  which  he  applies  to 
the  Father.  In  the  same  treatise  Tatian  refers  to  i  Jn. 
iv.  1-6.  The  Diatessaron  combines  all  four  Gospels  into 
one  mosaic  (180  A.D.).^ 

In  Muratorian  Canon. — Universal  recognition  of 
these  writings  and  their  single  author,  as  henceforth 
to  be  held  in  all  Churches,  is  denoted  by  the  Mura- 
torian Canon.  "The  fourth  of  the  Gospels,"  it  says, 
"  is  by  John  one  of  the  disciples  ;  being  urged  by  his 
fellow-disciples  and  bishops,  he  said,  '  Fast  with  me 
this  day  and  for  three  days ;  and  whatsoever  shall 
have  been  revealed  to  each  one  of  us,  let  us  relate 
it  to  the  rest '.  In  the  same  night  it  was  revealed  to 
the  Apostle  Andrew  that  John  should  write  the  whole 
in  his  own  name,  and  that  all  the  rest  should  revise 
it."  We  may  allow  for  something  legendary  in  this 
account.  But  Tatian  has  a  remark  which  seems  alto- 
gether applicable ;  he  speaks  of  "  those  most  divine 
interpretations  which,  in  course  of  time  having  been 
published  in  writing,  made  believers  in  them  accept- 
able to  God  ".  What  .should  we  infer  but  that  St.  John 
had  for  years  previously  taught  by  word  of  mouth  a 
doctrine,  or  comment,  on  the  life  of  his  Master  which 
at  length  he  was  persuaded  to  set  down  in  a  treatise, 
revised  (i.e.  edited)  by  his  disciples?     When  we  turn 

^E.Bi.,  "Gospels,"  1831,  note  5;  Tatian,  Apol.,  19,  12;  Clem. 
Alex.,  Fragm.,  sees.  1-22,  etc. 


I66  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

to  our  Gospel  with  its  twofold  conclusion,  its  indirect 
mention  of  the  author,  its  witness  in  the  singular,  and 
witness  again  to  that  in  the  plural,  we  seem  to  have 
the  very  work  before  us  which  is  described  by  Tatian 
and  the  Fragment.  When,  moreover,  Jewish  sectaries 
like  the  Naaseni  (Ophites),  who  preceded  the  Greek 
Gnostics,  refer  to  our  Lord  as  "  the  true  gate,"  and  have 
a  yersion  of  the  dialogue  with  the  Samaritan  woman, 
as  well  as  of  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus,  it 
follows  that  the  Gospel,  in  some  form,  was  extant 
between  loo  and  125.  To  this  latter  year  Basilides, 
who  called  himself  a  disciple  of  the  Apostles,  may  be 
assigned  ;  and  he  quotes  exactly  as  in  our  text,  "  That 
was  the  true  light  which  lighteth  every  man  coming 
into  the  world," — which  observe,  is  no  logion  of  Christ 
but  a  declaration  made  by  the  writer  of  the  prologue 
to  St.  John.i 

Apocalypse  by  Whom  ? — It  cannot,  then,  be  doubted 
that  soon  after  the  second  century  opened,  our  Gospel 
and  I  Epistle  were  in  existence.  And  reading  them 
in  their  obvious  meaning,  John  the  Apostle  was  their 
author.  On  the  other  hand,  John  the  "servant  of 
Jesus "  and  an  exile  in  Patmos  wrote  the  "  seven 
epistles "  which  form  chapters  ii.-iii.  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse, if  not  the  whole  book.  Our  New  Testament 
Canon  affirms  that  this  John  was  the  Apostle,  and  so 
Justin  M.  already  quoted,  who  according  to  St.  Jerome 
commented  on  the  prophecy.  Melito  of  Sardis,  one 
of  the  seven  Churches  addressed,  held  it  to  be  St. 
John's  and  also  expounded  it.  The  witness  of  Irenaeus, 
emphatic  and  repeated,  is  well  known,  for  he  deduced 
irom  this  writing  of  the  Evangelist  a  Millenarian  doc- 
trine which  was  fiercely  attacked  in  Greek  Christendom. 
Those  Churches,  as  St.  Jerome  tells  us,  would  not  ac- 
knowledge the  Revelation  of  John,  and  their  ground 

1  Vigouroux-Bacuez,  iii.  168-90;  "John"  in  Hastings,  D.  B.; 
E.  Bi.,  1838;  Westcott,  Study  of  the  Gospels;  Lightfoot,  Essays  on 
Supern.  Relig.;  Sanday,  Fourth  Gospel. 


DIFFICULTIES  RAISED  167 

was  by  no  means  critical ;  they  detested  the  notion 
of  an  earthly  Millennium  which  it  seemed  to  inculcate. 
Hence  Eusebius,  distinguishing  John  the  Elder  from 
the  Evangelist,  would  gladly  assign  to  the  Presbyter 
a  volume  of  which  he  disapproves  (iii.  24  ;  vii.  25). 
But  moderns  of  almost  every  school  agree  with  Justin, 
Melito,  Irenaius  and  the  rest,  in  tracing  the  great 
Prophecy  to  the  son  of  Zebedee, 

Objections  to  Unity  of  Authorship. — This  identity 
of  seer  and  evangelist  with  each  other  and  with  our 
Lord's  Apostle  has  been  denied,  for  reasons  which 
in  the  main  are  literary  or  doctrinal,  as  plainly  ap- 
pears above  in  Eusebius,  The  proofs  alleged  by  us  in 
previous  citations,  forming  two  parallel  series,  cannot 
well  be  overthrown  ;  but  by  taking  them  separately 
and  putting  on  them  any  interpretation  which  may 
embarrass  the  Johannine  sources  of  reference,  an  escape 
is  sought  from  the  chief  conclusion,  viz.,  that  our  Fourth 
Gospel  was  written  by  one  of  the  Twelve.  To  this  end 
it  is  urged  (i)  that  whoever  composed  the  Apocalypse 
could  not  have  left  us  the  Gospel ;  and  (2)  that  whoever 
set  down  the  discourses  of  Christ  in  the  Gospel  could 
not  have  known  Him  personally,  had  never  lived  in 
Palestine,  and  draws  a  picture  of  the  Saviour  which  our 
Synoptics  would  have  been  unable  to  recognise.  So 
that  on  both  sides  the  authorship  of  St.  John  is  attacked  ; 
the  Book  of  Revelation,  it  is  said,  betrays  thought  and 
style  as  Hebrew  as  can  be  imagined,  intensely  Jewish 
and  patriotic,  with  a  passionate  reverence  for  the  Temple,, 
a  hatred  of  those  who  would  abolish  the  Law,  and  even 
of  St.  Paul's  disciples.  Hence  it  is  the  work  of  an 
Ebionite.  But  the  Fourth  Gospel  comes  to  us  from  a 
Greek,  nay,  an  artist,  who  wrote  his  language  with  a 
certain  purity,  was  quite  estranged  from  Jews  and 
Judaism,  went  beyond  St.  Paul  in  his  conviction  that 
Law  and  Temple  had  seen  their  day,  and  substituted 
for  the  tradition  of  Jerusalem  a  spiritual  theosophy  in 
which  national  differences  were  swallowed  up.     And 


l68  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

this  Greek,  of  course  not  being  a  familiar  friend  of 
Jesus,  invented  for  the  vehicle  of  his  teaching  miracles 
and  conversations  in  which  it  is  impossible  to  discover 
any  likeness  of  the  parables  and  the  Logia  (certainly- 
genuine  utterances  of  Christ)  bequeathed  to  us  in  the 
other  Gospels.  His  whole  composition  is,  after  the 
manner  of  Philo,  a  symbolic  clothing  of  ideas  in  argu- 
ments and  incidents,  none  of  which  can  fairly  be 
deemed  historical.  No  sayings  of  Jesus  recorded  only 
in  this  Gospel  are  authentic,  no  miracles  in  it  are 
founded  on  fact.^ 

Some  Answers  to  Difficulties. — Candid  upholders  of 
the  ancient  view  feel  that  some  things  urged  against  it 
are  weighty,  and  endeavour  to  explain  them  rather  than 
to  deny  their  truth  altogether.  Even  in  the  briefest 
outline  it  would  be  impossible  to  give  the  discussion 
here.  We  may  say,  however,  that  to  believe  the  Apoca- 
lypse written  in  95  A.D.  and  the  Fourth  Gospel  ten  years 
afterwards  by  the  same  hand,  is  a  position  of  extreme 
difficulty.  Should  the  Book  of  Revelation  be  broken 
into  various  distinct  prophecies,  of  which  the  central  one 
goes  back  to  6S,  we  can  imagine  St.  John  editing  these 
in  a  volume  to  which  his  seven  admonitions  of  the 
Churches  might  form  a  preface.  Or  if  he  was  himself 
writing  before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  his  language  and 
attitude  might  well  be  unlike  the  position  of  his  mind 
thirty  years  later,  when  nothing  was  left  of  the  Temple 
but  a  memory,  and  Judaism  had  nearly  passed  out  of 
the  Christian  horizon.  "The  Apocalypse,"  says  Dr. 
Abbott,  "was  a  valued  book  in  the  circles  in  which  the 
author  of  the  Gospel  moved,  and  he  arose  in  that 
environment  and  atmosphere."  Citations  and  cross- 
references  justify  these  conclusions.  There  was  a 
common  source,  whatever  its  extent,  of  both  writings. 
Yet  again,  it  is  an  exaggeration  to  insist  on  the  pure 
articulated   Greek  of  the  Gospel.     Certainly  it  comes 

1  Abbott,  "  John's  Gosp."  in  E.  Bi.,  cf.  Loisy,  Comment,  siir  le  IV. 
Evang. 


ST.  JOHN  AND  SYNOPTICS  1 69 

nearer  to  a  good  style  than  the  Revelation,  which  may 
be  translated  into  Hebrew  without  essential  change  of 
structure  and  sounds  in  many  places  almost  barbaric  to 
the  ear  of  Hellas.  But  neither  can  we  fail  to  observe  in 
the  Gospel  how  scanty  are  the  conjunctions,  how  short 
and  abrupt  the  sentences,  how  monotonous  the  sequence, 
and  how  frequent  the  parallelism  of  clauses.  There  is 
an  improvement  in  the  writing  when  compared  with 
the  Apocalypse  which  does  not  take  away  its  associa- 
tion with  Hebrew  forms.  If  we  assume  that  St.  John 
gave  the  substance  which  his  Hellenistic  secretary  put 
into  shape,  the  problem  would  be  greatly  lightened. 
What  is  there  to  forbid  that  supposition?  So  much, 
then,  as  regards  the  Apocalypse  and  its  relation  to  the 
other  group  of  Johannine  documents.^ 

Contrast  between  Fourth  and  Other  Qospels. — 
Now  the  much  more  serious  question  confronts  us : 
How  comes  there  to  be  so  little  analogy,  so  striking  a 
contrast,  between  this  Gospeller  and  his  predecessors  ? 
"  On  few  subjects,"  it  has  been  said,  "  have  scholars 
shown  more  unanimity  than  in  holding  that  he  was  at 
least  acquainted  with  the  Synoptic  Gospels."  Even  if 
he  did  not  know  them  in  their  latest  form,  it  is,  then, 
unlikely  that  he  proceeded  in  ignorance  of  them.  Nor 
will  any  serious  thinker  charge  him  with  rejecting  their 
account  of  his  Master.  He  supplements  them,  as  critics 
declare  who  call  our  attention  to  his  love  of  minute 
detail ;  but  he  is  far  from  taking  a  subordinate  place  as 
teacher ;  and  his  narrative  wears  an  undoubted  air  of 
mysticism  in  setting  and  in  choice  of  material.  His 
aim,  we  cannot  refuse  to  believe,  was  polemic,  nay,  in 
a  very  high  degree  dogmatic ;  he  therefore  wraps  up 
doctrine  in  history,  using  his  facts  with  freedom.  Hence 
a  certain  method  of  transposition,  by  which  he  turns 
the  Synoptic  parables  into  similitudes,  exhibits  a  word 
as  in  action,  and  supposing  his  readers  to  be  familiar 
with  institutions  like  Baptism  and  the  Eucharist,  gives 

^  Batiffol,  Six  Lemons,  102-17. 


170  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

to  them  a  spiritual  meaning  in  the  discourses  of  Christ. 
Such  a  procedure  does  not  imply  that  speeches  and 
incidents  were  all  invented  for  a  purpose.  Many  of 
the  sayings  attributed  to  our  Lord  bear  on  them  a 
stamp  of  authenticity  as  convincing  as  those  in  St, 
Matthew.  But  they  are  expanded,  or  commented  upon, 
with  a  view  to  edification  ;  their  drift  is  pointed  against 
errors  which  the  Divine  Teacher  by  His  life  and  passion 
had  condemned ;  nor  have  we  an  assurance  where  the 
actual  words  of  Christ  break  off,  and  where  they  glide 
into  the  exposition  of  him  who  narrates  them.^ 

Truth  of  the  History  in  John. — We  must  accordingly 
distinguish  the  substance  and  spirit  from  the  syntax  ; 
and  the  phrase,  or  even  (if  criticism  really  demands  it) 
the  occasion,  from  the  message  itself  in  this  document. 
From  first  to  last  it  assumes  that  believers  know  what 
the  earthly  life  of  their  Redeemer  was  and  see  Him 
abiding  with  them  in  His  sacrifice  and  sacraments.  It 
cannot  be  allowed  that  the  miracles  recorded  never 
took  place ;  or  that  Nathaniel,  Nicodemus,  Lazarus,  are 
mythical  figures ;  or  that  Mary  the  Mother  of  Jesus 
falls  into  a  mere  symbol  of  the  Jewish  Church ;  or  that 
St.  John  did  not  see  the  things  which  he  declares  that 
he  did  see.  "  Retrospective  intuitions  "  we  may  grant, 
provided  that  in  the  words  and  works  of  Jesus  their 
significance  was  present ;  we  cannot  grant  an  allegory 
without  foundation.  Again,  we  are  sure  of  the  twofold 
element  which  comes  out  clearly  in  our  Lord's  teaching 
as  the  Synoptics  report  of  Him ;  His  parables  to  the 
multitude,  His  interpretation  of  their  hidden  meaning 
among  the  favoured  disciples.  He  was  at  once  "  the 
Son  of  Man"  and  the  Messiah,  who  alone  knew  the 
Father  and  could  reveal  Him  to  His  chosen.  These 
two  veiy  different  aspects  of  Jesus  require  each  a  corre- 
sponding language,  a  range  of  ideas  not  on  the  same 
level.     When  we  discount,  so  to  call  it,  the  literary 

1  Hastings,  D.  B.,  "  John  "  and  "  Gospel  of  John,"  admirable  studies 
of  the  whole  subject. 


MATTER  AND  FORM  IN  ST.  JOHN  17 1 

method  employed  by  St.  John's  disciples  who  took 
down  their  master's  discourses  (Muratorian  Frag.)  and 
fix  our  minds  on  the  ideas  or  themes  (the  Logia)  from 
which  as  a  starting-point  they  are  developed,  we  find 
ourselves  in  touch  with  the  earlier  Gospels.  Not  only 
passages  like  Matt.  xi.  25-30,  but  others  of  which  xv. 
13  is  a  striking  instance,  prepare  us  for  the  decisive 
self-assertions  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  which  have  given 
scandal  to  non-believers.  VVe  conclude  that  our  Lord 
spoke  according  to  the  Synoptics  ;  but  that  His  thought 
has  been  set  in  high  relief  by  St.  John.  Such  was  the 
verdict  of  those  many  primitive  writers  who  looked  up 
to  this  teaching  as  the  spiritual  Gospel,  and  who  saw  in 
it  nt)t  the  rejection,  but  the  valid  rendering  for  all  time 
of  Christ's  miracles  and  parables,  as  well  as  the  witness 
to  His  Godhead  borne  by  a  death  that  crowned  a  life 
beyond  compare.  This  whole  economy,  they  held  with 
St.  Iren^eus,  was  perpetuated  in  the  Church, — in  that 
new  Jerusalem  and  tabernacle  of  God  with  men  which 
the  seer  of  the  Apocalypse  had  proclaimed. 

Decisions  and  Inferences. — On  May  29,  1907,  the 
Roman  Commission  declared  that  St.  John  the  Apostle 
was  the  author  of  this  Gospel,  as  proved  from  history  and 
internal  arguments ;  that  a  reasonable  answer  to  diffi- 
culties  arising  from  its  collation  with  the  Synoptics  may 
be  found  in  the  Fathers  and  Catholic  commentators  ; 
that  its  narratives  were  not  invented,  wholly  or  in  part, 
to  serve  as  allegories  or  doctrinal  symbols  ;  and  that 
Our  Lord's  discourses  are  not  simply  theological  com- 
positions put  upon  His  lips,  but  truly  and  properly  His 
own.^ 

'  Batiffol,  Six  Lemons,  118-30;  Calmes,  Evang.  St.  yean;  Lepin, 
yisus  Messie;  P.  Rose,  Etudes  stir  les  Evangiles,  Eng.  Tr. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

ACTS,  EPISTLES,  APOCALYPSE. 

Gospels  =  Pentateuch ;    Epistles  =  Prophets. — As 

by  position  and  authority  the  Gospels  do,  in  a  measure, 
correspond  to  the  Pentateuch,  we  may  consider  the 
Apostolic  writings  which  follow  them  to  be  the  ana- 
logue of  Old  Testament  prophecy.  With  much  fitness 
these  are  introduced  by  one  of  the  most  beautiful  and 
edifying  works  that  inspiration  has  bestowed  on  us,  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Now,  "the  similarity  of  lan- 
guage, style  and  idea,"  says  Prof.  Schmiedel,  "  constantly 
leads  back  to  this  conclusion,"  viz.,  that  whoever  wrote 
the  Third  Gospel  also  composed  the  Acts.  But,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  Fourth  Gospel,  which  is  not  later  than 
I  lo  A.D.,  implies  that  our  Synoptics  were  in  existence 
already.  It  is  not,  therefore,  admissible  to  bring  down 
the  Acts  with  some  modern  schools,  German  or  Dutch, 
as  low  as  the  year  140.  We  may  confidently  hold  the 
view  which  IrencEUS  draws  out  at  length  in  his  Third 
Book.  "  This  Luke,"  he  declares,  "  was  inseparable 
from  Paul  and  his  fellow-worker  in  the  Gospel,  as  Luke 
himself  makes  manifest "  ;  for  "  when  he  had  been  pre- 
sent at  all  these  things,  he  wrote  them  diligently  "  ;  and 
"he  bears  witness"  to  the  tradition,  "  according  as  they 
have  delivered  to  us  who  from  the  beginning  were  spec- 
tators and  ministers  of  the  word ".  So  that  "  if  any 
man  refuses  Luke,  he  will  be  evidently  casting  aside 
the  Gospel ".  It  was  Marcion,  against  whom  Irenasus 
is  arguing  in  this  place,  who  would  not  accept  our  Third 
Gospel  whole  and  entire.     But  he  and  Valentinus  made 

172 


ST.  LUKE  WROTE  ACTS  173 

use  of  it ;  from  which  we  can  infer  that  the  Acts  also 
had  long  been  known  and  were  a  part  of  Christian 
sacred  literature.  St.  Poiycarp  has  more  than  one 
allusion  to  Acts;  Justin  M.  (137  or  152)  has  marked 
references.  But  the  volume  is,  in  a  general  manner, 
dated  by  the  early  stage  of  hierarchical  development, 
long  anterior  to  Ignatius,  when  the  college  of  "  presby- 
ters" yet  holds  the  foreground,  as  in  St.  Paul's  farewell 
speech  to  the  Ephcsians  (Acts  xx,  17).^ 

Place  and  Date  of  Acts. — The  place  of  composition 
is  judged  to  be  Rome ;  tradition  says  on  the  site  of  S. 
Maria  in  Via  Lata ;  the  histoiy  takes  up  about  thirty 
years  ;  it  breaks  off  designedly  before  St.  Paul's  martj^r- 
dom  (in  order  not  to  offend  the  Roman  authorities,  as 
critics  conjecture),  and  the  writing  is  subsequent  to  the 
Third  Gospel,  "  the  former  treatise".  A  period  after 
70  is  indicated.  Such  moderns  as  perceive  in  the  Acts 
an  acquaintance  with  Josephus,  would  place  them  in 
the  first  thirty  years  of  the  second  century ;  but  their 
arguments  are  not  convincing,  although  reference  to 
Theudas  (v.  2^)  seems  to  make  for  it.'-^  To  suppose, 
on  the  other  hand,  that  our  book  was  in  existence 
before  St.  Paul  suffered  (though  St.  Jerome  thought 
so),  would  throw  back  the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke  too  early 
and  seems  improbable.  Finally,  it  has  been  well  said 
that  the  Acts  are  "  in  all  the  Canons  from  that  of 
Muratori  to  the  Council  of  Trent,"  being  ever  ascribed 
to  "the  beloved  physician"  of  Colossians  iv.  14.  The 
text  is  inadequately  represented  in  the  Old  Latin,  and 
is  wanting  in  the  Syriac. 

Arguments  for  Late  Origin. — In  Tertullian's  ex- 
pression St;__Paul  was  the  "  illuminator  Lucse " ;  the 
Third  Gospel  is  Pauline,  whether  we  regard  its  drift, 
which  had  in  view  Hellenic  Christians ;  or  its  ideas  of 
justification,  conversion,  universal  redemption  ;  or  its 

'  Iren.,  iii.  xiv.  i ;  Poiycarp,  1-3;  Tertull.,  Adv.  Marcion,  v.  2;  Euseb., 
H.  E.,  ii.  18 ;  iii.  4;  iv.  27. 

*  Solutions  offered  in  Vigouroux,  M.  B.,  iv.  39. 


174  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

language  derived  from  the  Apostle  and  reminiscent  of 
the  LXX.  In  like  manner  the  Acts.  No  doubt  can 
be  entertained  that  the,"  we"  sections  (xvi.  10-17;  xx. 
5-15;  xxi.  I-18;  xxvii.  i-xxviii.  16)  are  from  an  eye- 
witness and  companion  of  St.  Paul.  Neither  is  it 
reasonable  to  question  what  antiquity  affirmed,  that 
this  journal  and  the  rest  of  the  Acts  come  from  the 
hand  of  St.  Luke  the  Evangelist.  Objections  are  put 
forward  on  several  grounds,  but  mainly  (i)  because  the 
doctrine  attributed  to  the  Apostle,  for  instance  at 
Athens  (xvii.  22-32),  does  not  tally  with  his  anti-Greek 
denunciations  of  philosophy  elsewhere  (i  Cor.  i.  20- 
iii.  21) ;  and  (2)  on  account  of  historical  discrepancies  in 
the  matter  of  St.  Paul's  conversion  (xA.cts  ix.  7  compared 
with  xxii.  9)  and  as  touching  the  disputes  about  the 
law  (Acts  XV.  compared  with  Galatians  ii,).  The  old 
^'  school  of  Tubingen,  therefore,  described  our  author  (an 
unknown  Christian  of  the  post-Apostolic  period)  as 
intending  to  reconcile  the  Ebionite  Peter  and  James 
with  Paul  their  enemy  by  means  of  legends,  invented 
or  highly  coloured,  which  held  the  balance  between 
Hebrew  and  Hellene,  That  view  is  no  longer  preva- 
lent. It  had  one  merit,  as  insisting  that  Gospel  and 
Acts  were  written  with  a  purpose.  But  the  differences 
which  we  remark  on  turning  from  Galatians  (the  earlier 
piece  and  unquestionably  authentic)  to  the  story  as 
told  in  Acts,  are  not  imaginary,  whatever  be  their 
explanation. 

Reconciliation  of  Passages  in  St.  Luke  and  St. 
Paul. — As  it  is  the  same  writer  who  gives  both  narra- 
tives of  St.  Paul's  conversion  in  chapters  ix.  and  xxii., 
we  can  hardly  suppose  him  to  be  contradicting  himself; 
and  a  little  care  in  reading  will  put  us  on  our  guard 
against  the  thought  of  it.  The  Apostle,  moreover,  while 
denouncing  heathen  philosophy  when  it  opposes  to  the 
Gospel  maxims  of  unbelief,  is  consistent  on  the  Hill  of 
Mars  with  his  own  principles  in  Romans  i.  19-22,  where 
he  maintains  that  the  Gentiles  knew  God  by  the  light 


DISPUTES  ABOUT  THE  LAW  175 

of  reason.  This  double-edged  method  has  ahvays  been 
employed  in  Catholic  demonstrations ;  and  why  should 
it  not  be?  Corrupt  reason  is  one  thing ;  reason  in  itself 
and  rightly  employed  is  quite  another. 

The  last  point  is  more  difficult.  That  dissensions  of 
a  very  grave  ciiaracter  arose  between  St.  Paul  and  the 
immediate  followers  of  SS.  Peter  and  James,  we  know 
to  be  a  fact.  It  seems  equally  certain  that  the  Epistle 
of  St.  James  took  its  occasion  from  the  Pauline  descrip- 
tion of  faith  and  reviews  the  matter  in  a  very  different 
aspect.  The  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  is  our  warrant 
for  his  sharp  contest  with  St.  Peter  at  Antioch.  But 
the  impression  conveyed  by  Acts,  if  it  stood  alone, 
would  seem  to  be  unlike  what  is  narrated  elsewhere. 
To  which  things  this  may  serve  as  an  answer.  The 
veracity  of  St.  Luke  is  unimpeached  and  unimpeach- 
able. If  we  do  not  charge  him  with  devising  the  story 
of  Cornelius  (chapter  x.), — and  no  critic  we  need  take 
into  account  has  ventured  so  far, — it  is  plain  that  St. 
Peter  held  and  acted  on  the  principle  of  admitting 
Gentiles  to  baptism,  while  he  did  not  compel  them  to 
observe  Jewish  rites  and  customs.  He  was,  therefore, 
at  one  with  St.  Paul  in  the  general  view,  which  carried 
with  it  emancipation  from  Mosaic  observances.  But 
the  Prince  of  the  Apostles  kept  in  sight  his  obligations 
towards  converted  Israelites  ;  St.  Paul,  on  the  contrary, 
had  most  at  heart  the  freedom  which  his  Gentile  com- 
munities demanded.  There  was  room  here  for  discus- 
sion and  need  of  give  and  take.  In  the  Epistles  we 
see  things  at  the  stage  of  difference,  which  neither  could 
nor  did  prove  lasting.  History  teaches  that  St.  Paul 
triumphed.  As  we  are  not  justified  in  rejecting  the 
episode  of  Cornelius  on  any  solid  motive ;  and  as  it  is 
certain  that  the  Christians  of  SS.  Peter  and  James  did, 
in  the  event,  accept  an  arrangement  like  that  which  St 
Luke  describes,  or  lapsv'^d  outright  into  the  Ebionite 
heresy ;  we  must  believe  in  some  practical  compromise, 
approved  by  the  College  at  Jerusalem.     The  Acts  in- 


176  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

form  us  that  it  was  drawn  up  after  "  there  had  been 
much  questioning,"  and  how  it  came  to  pass  (xv.  7  seq.). 
The  disputes  which  preceded  are  left  in  the  shade ;  but 
when  this  volume  appeared,  who  will  fancy  that  St. 
Paul's  Epistles  were  not  known  to  the  Romans  ad- 
dressed in  it,  or  not  accessible  to  them  ?  It  is,  of 
course,  fair  to  remark  on  the  gentle,  uncontentious 
manner  in  which  St.  Luke  presents  his  narrative ;  he 
writes  as  a  peacemaker,  and,  if  on  the  verge  of  St. 
Clement's  pontificate,  to  a  people  who  already  vener- 
ated the  twin-Apostles  as  founders  of  the  Church  in 
Rome.  Had  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  not  been  recon- 
ciled in  practice  as  they  were  at  one  in  principle,  the 
Christianity  which  flourished  under  Clement  could  never 
have  survived.  That  they  were  reconciled,  the  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians  assures  us.^ 

St.  Luke  First  Christian  Apologist.  —  Another 
observation  is  to  the  point.  St.  Luke  writes  for  a 
believing  audience,  represented  by  Theophilus,  to  in- 
struct them  in  their  Creed  ;  not  therefore  a  history 
alone  but  a  Christian  apology ;  and  this  defines  his 
attitude.  From  the  associates  of  the  Twelve,  of  the 
seven  Deacons  (especially  St.  Stephen),  of  St.  Paul  in 
the  days  before  the  Evangelist  knew  him,  details  were 
gathered  in  ;  the  sources  may  have  been  sometimes 
called  the  "  Acts  of  Peter "  and  the  "  Acts  of  Paul  ". 
But  the  handling  is  not  simply  objective.  Lessons  are 
driven  home,  explanations  added,  speeches  designed 
somewhat  after  the  style  of  Thucydides--  We  need  not 
read  them  as  if  taken  down  in  shorthand  ;  they  give  us 
a  true  but  an  artistic  rendering  of  what  was  said.  The 
admirable  unity  of  presentation  shows  us  that  all  the 
subject-matter  has  been  moulded  into  one  exquisite 
form.     And  it  is  the  Catholic  Church,  as  history  brings 

^-*Gal.  ii.  9,  10;  Clem.  Rom.,  Ad  Cor.,  v.  vi. 
y''     ^Thucyd.,  i.  22,  "According  to  my  notion  of  what  was  fitting  for 
/     the  persons  to  have  spoken,  while  I  adhered  to  the  general  sense 
i        actually  delivered  ". 

J 


ST.  PAUL'S  LETTERS  177 

it  to  light,  from  now  onward  to  the  end  of  the  second 
century,  that  reveals  its  features  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  St.  Luke  is  the  first  of  Church  historians. 
No  function,  therefore,  could  be  more  proper  to  his 
writing  than  the  calm  exposition  of  a  faith  by  which 
many  diverse  tendencies  are  reconciled,  the  moral  energy 
which  Hebrew^aw  fostered  with  the  elements  of  wis- 
dom which  Christian  philosophy  was  destined  to  as- 
??imtlate  from  the  Greeks,  and  both  with  the  sense  of 
justice  that  made  the  glory  of  Rome.^ 
"Order  of  Pauline  Writings. — This  happy  introduc- 
tion brings  us  to  the  most  original,  as  they  are  the  most 
exacting,  of  New  Testament  volumes,  the  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul.  But  in  our  present  stage  we  have  chiefly  to 
consider  them  as  being  a  part  of  the  Canon,  about 
which  point  there  is  no  controversy.  The  editors  of 
the  New  Testament  have  set  them,  not  in  order  of 
time,  but  according  to  their  object:  (i)  those  which 
address  Churches,  (2)  those  directed  to  individuals,  (3) 
the  disputed  letter  to  the  Hebrews — fourteen  in  all. 
Chronologically,  the  sequence  favoured  by  Catholic 
divines  is  as  follows : — 

Six  Epistles  written  in  six  years,  during  St.   Paul's 
second  and  third  journeys : — 

i_Thessalonians,  second  journey,  52  A.!).,  from  Corinth. 

2  Thessalonians,  same  period  and  place. 

1  Corinthians,  third  journey,  56  A.D.,  from  Ephesus. 

2  Corinthians,  57  A.D.,  from  Philippi. 
Galatians,  57  A.D.,  from  Corinth. 
Romans,  58  A.D.,  from  Corinth. 

Four  Epistles  towards  the^  end  of  his  first  captivity, 
from  Rome  in  62  A,D.  : — 

Philippians,  Ephesians,  Colossians,  Philemon. 
Three  between  first  and  second  captivity  : — 
Hebrews,  (?)  6^  A.D.,  from  Italy. 
Titus,  64  A.D.,  from  Macedonia. 

^  Hastings,  D.  B., "  Acts  "  by  Headlam ;  best  account  of  the  subject, 
Vigouroux,  A/.  J5.,  iv.  11,  13,  139-46,  168-74. 

12 


178  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

1  Timothy,  same  date  and  neighbourhood. 
One  during  last  captivit}^ : — 

2  Timothy,  66  a.d,,  (?)  from  Rome. 

These  dates  are  commonly  accepted  for  the  first 
gi'oup  ;  they  admit  of  discussion  as  regards  the  second  ; 
and  are  open  to  many  difficulties  when  we  come  to  the 
third.i 

In  the  ordinary  reckoning  St.  Paul  was  converted 
34  A.D.,  went  up  to  Jerusalem  as  reported  in  Galatians 
in  37;  arrived  a  prisoner  in  Rome  during  59  or  60; 
and  was  martyred  either  in  64  or  in  67.  The  latter, 
which  is  a  traditional  date  derived  from  Eusebius,  does 
not  find  favour  in  the  eyes  of  modern  authorities. 

Fixed  and  Disputed  Points. — Many  as  have  been 
the  attempts  to  reconstruct  the  New  Testament  on  a 
scheme  of  internal  criticism,  St.  Paul  has,  to  a  large  ex- 
tent, triumphed  over  them  all.  Four  Epistles,  Romans, 
I  and  2  Corinthians,  and  Galatians,  are  allowed  to  be 
his  by  every  one  except  certain  speculative  writers, 
"  hypercritics,"  who  find  little  echo.  Three  others,  i 
and  2  Thessalonians  and  Philippians,  are  largely  ad- 
mitted. Ephesians  and  Colossians,  though  challenged 
by  scholars  of  repute,  seem  to  claim  their  Pauline  rights 
on  motives  similar  to  those  which  authenticate  Philip- 
pians. The  touching  Letter  to  Philemon  has  no  marked 
dogmatic  interest,  though  opportune  as  testimony  to 
Ephes.-Coloss.,  and  is  so  brief  that  its  acknowledgment 
passes  without  trouble.  Not  so  Hebrews,  denied  to  be 
St.  Paul's  by  the  Roman  Church  from  a  period  long 
antecedent  to  Jerome's  mention  of  this  fact.  "  The 
custom  of  the  Latins,"  he  says,  "  does  not  receive  it 
among  the  Canonical  Scriptures  "  ;  their  ground  was  its 
unknown  authorship,  not  its  teaching.  The  Pastoral 
Epistles,  I  and  2  Timothy  and  Titus,  forming  a  group 
of  which  Ernest  Renan  said,  "  They  must  be  all  three 
admitted   or   rejected,"   were  cast   aside   by   Marcion 

^Vigouroux,  Man.  Bibl.,  iv.  i8o. 

*H.  E.,  ii.  22,  25  ;  iii.  i ;  E.  Bi.,  "Chronologies,"  sees.  64-84. 


THE  APOSTOLTCON  1 79 

(perhaps  by  Basilidcs)  not,  as  St.  Jerome  observes,  for 
reasons  given,  but  "  on  heretical  authority  ".^  Reasons 
have  been  alleged  in  later  times — unlikeness  of  style  to 
the  Apostle,  anachronisms  betraying  their  real  date  on 
a  close  inspection.  But,  besides  the  particular  doubts 
just  indicated,  a  recent  effort  has  been  made  to  prove 
in  all  the  Epistles  extensive  editing  and  consequent 
interpolations.  Much  of  this  being  very  wild  work,  we 
need  scarcely  dwell  upon  it.  The  other  points  desei"ve 
such  attention  as  our  space  will  permit. 

The  Church  always  Received  Thirteen  Epistles. 
— At  the  beginning  we  set  down,  in  favour  of  the 
Thirteen  Epistles,  and  not  taking  Hebrews  into  ac- 
count, the  unbroken  conscious  witness  of  the  Church ; 
for,  as  again  Renan  judges,  by  127  A.D.  the  Pastoral 
Letters  were  received  with  St.  Paul's ;  and  Marcion's 
rough  handling  of  the  whole  collection  or  positive  rejec- 
tion of  some  of  the  Letters  does  but  strengthen  this 
evidence.  Moreover,  that  personal  documents  such  as 
these,  early  read  in  Christian  congregations  and  known 
as  the  Apostolicon,  should  be  interpolated,  is  far  less 
credible  than  that  incidents  or  sayings  due  to  oral  tra- 
dition should  ask  a  place  in  the  margin  of  the  Gospels 
and  so  be  added  to  their  text.  There  is  a  third  con- 
sideration. Letters  of  all  things  are  most  liable  to 
revision  at  the  sender's  hands  ;  they  admit  of  post- 
scripts, intercalated  notes,  and  irregular  correction  ;  so 
that  no  inference  prejudicial  to  their  integrity  can  be 
drawn  from  such  phenomena  by  themselves.  And  if 
ever  a  style  of  epistolary  correspondence,  free  to  the 
utmost  in  make  and  language  existed,  it  is  that  of 
St.  Paul. 

Recent  and  Extreme  Guess-work. — Those  who  will 
have  it  that  all  thirteen  Epistles  are  pseudepigrapha 
(Van  Manen  and  others),  yet  agree  with  Catholic 
writers  on  their  unity~of  impression.     "  The  group  when 

^Tertull.,  Adv.  Marcion,  i.  i,  etc. ;  Jerome,  Prcsf.  in  Titum, 

12  * 


l8o  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

compared  with  the  Johannine  Epistles,  with  James, 
Jude,  Ignatius,  Clement,  with  the  Gospel  of  Matthew, 
or  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp,"  says  this  last-named 
critic,  "  bears  obvious  marks  ...  of  having  originated 
in  one  circle,  at  one  time,  in  one  environment."  Now, 
if  any  facts  of  history  or  literature  can  be  deemed 
certain,  the  Pauline  authorship  of  Romans  and  Gala- 
tians  belongs  to  that  category.  The  Fathers  and  the 
heresiarchs,  the  School  of  Tubingen  and  the  tradition 
of  Rome,  are  unanimous  in  allowing  it.  To  suppose 
that  a  forger  could  have  invented  these  works  of  a 
unique  description  (and  a  set  of  forgers  becomes  yet 
more  incredible),  passing  them  off  on  the  Apostolic 
Churches  to  which  they  were  addressed,  under  the 
name  of  a  St.  Paul  who  wrote  nothing  like  them,  is  an 
extravagance  of  the  subjective  method  under  which  no 
history  would  survive. 

It  Strengthens  the  Ancient  Position. — But  in  postu- 
lating the  unity  of  the  Letters  that  it  may  assign  them 
to  Gnostic  innovators — Basilides,  Marcion,  Valentinus, 
Heracleon,  or  nameless  forerunners  and  followers  of  the 
heretical  movement  in  the  second  century, — this  aber- 
ration does  yeoman's  service  to  orthodoxy.  It  proves 
that  when  external  evidence  has  been  wholly  discarded, 
imagination  will  run  riot ;  and  that  solid  grounds  exist 
for  connecting  in  a  series  and  giving  to  one  single 
author  the  Apostolicon  which  Christians  always  received 
as  from  the  Doctor  Gentium.  If  we  know  aught  of 
antiquity,  it  is  that  St.  Paul's  name  was  read  on  these 
Letters  from  the  first.  And  if  we  may  believe  those 
who  reject  his  name  on  them,  all  came  from  an  identical 
source.  The  old  view  is,  therefore,  in  possession,  resting 
on  external  evidence  for  the  name,  on  internal  for  the 
unity,  which  it  has  ever  upheld.  When  to  this  we  find 
/k  opposed  that  "so  large  an  experience,  so  great  a 
J  widening  of  the  field  of  vision,  so  high  a  degree  of 
I  spiritual  power,"  cannot  be  "attributed  to  one  man 
f     within  so  limited  a  time,"  we  remark  only  how  the  same 


E  VIDENCE  OF  FA  TIIERS  1 8 1 

so-called  "  Enlitrhtcnmcnt,"  which  was  unable  to  admit 
Divine  manifestations  in  the  Old  Scripture,  goes  on  to 
deny  the  miracles  of  genius   in  the   New.     That   St.  j 
I'aul  was  a  unique  personality,  dealing  with  religion  as  [ 
Alexander  with  empires  or  Shakespeare  with  literature,  ) 
is  inconceivable  to  this  form  of  mental  narrowness. 

On  the  singular  theory  which  we  are  here  putting 
aside,  a  circle  of  heretics  at  Antioch,  or  perhaps  "  some- 
where in  Asia  Minor,"  invented  Pauline  Christianity 
between  100-140;  gave  it  the  designation  of  an  other- 
wise not  very  significant  preacher  who  had  joined  the 
Early  Church  ;  and  by  means  of  these  Letters,  none 
being  written  in  his  time  or  by  his  dictation,  succeeded 
in  getting  themselves  a  place  among  Catholic  believers. 
Marcion  had  no  small  share  in  the  enterprise.  True 
"  Epistles  "  they  are  not ;  they  were  never  sent  to  the 
congregations  or  individuals  whom  they  address ;  and 
it  was  the  orthodox,  not  Marcion  or  his  disciples,  that 
falsified  the  "Pauline"  text  on  behalf  of  their  doctrine.^ 

Judgment  of  Tertullian  and  Origan. — Tertullian's 
large  treatise  against  Marcion  embodies  the  universal 
judgment  of  Catholics  in  and  before  his  own  time.  It 
recognises  the  Thirteen  Epistles,  and  upbraids  the 
heresiarch  for  rejecting  the  Pastoral  Letters  which  he 
found  already  extant ;  it  appeals  to  the  Churches  which 
had  St.  Paul's  doctrine  preserved  to  them  by  his  writ- 
ings, as  a  living  voice, — Corinth,  Philippi,  Thessalonica, 
Ephesus,  Rome.  The  Apologist  does  not  so  much  as 
dream  that  another  had  taken  St.  Paul  for  a  cloak  of 
his  later  inventions.  No  writer  of  any  ancient  school 
ever  hinted  such  a  thing.  The  forgeiy,  perfect  in  its 
amazing  originality  of  tone  and  detail,  would  thus  have 
left  not  a  shadow  of  doubt  from  the  beginning,  since 
all  alike  accepted  it.  Yet,  as  Tertullian  notes,  there 
were^alleged  Pauline  writings  besides,  but  condemned 
as  apocryphal.     For  the  Eastern  Church  Origen  is  a 

^  £.  Bi.,  "  Paul,"  sees.  38,  39,  42,  46. 


1 82  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

witness  ;  "  the  last  of  the  Apostles,"  he  terms  St,  Paul, 
"  whose  fourteen  Letters  have  destroyed  the  founda- 
tions of  idolatry  and  the  proud  edifice  of  human  wis- 
dom". The  Muratorian  Fragment  implies  a  journey 
of  the  Apostle  into  Spain,  recites  the  list  as  we  have 
it  now,  except  Hebrews,  distinguishing  seven  Epistles 
to  the  Churches  (two  double,  Corinthians  and  Thessa- 
lonians)  and  four  to  individuals,  which,  however,  served 
for  general  edification.  It  condemns  the  Epistles  to 
.Laodicaea  and  Alexandria  then  current  as  Marcionite 
fictions.  The  Syriac  New.  Testament  includes  Hebrews__ 
among  the  Pauline  group. 

Evidence  between  95  and  170  A.D. — Coming  back 
to  the  West,  we  find  everywhere  in  Irenaeus  the  same 
unclouded  belief  which  Christians  have  at  this  day  in 
that  collection  ;  he  rebukes  those  Gnostics  who  for 
their  pernicious  ends  tamper  with  it,  and  quotes  all  the 
Letters  except  that  to  Philemon,  time  after  time.  How 
manifest  is  the  testimony  of  heresiarchs  from  125  to 
170  we  have  repeatedly  noticed,  and  how  anxious  they 
were  to  exploit  sacred  documents  of  a  standing  so  well 
authorised.  Eusebius,  however,  tells  us  that  the  Ebi- 
onites  thought  the  Epistles  of  Paul  should  be  rejected, 
and  called  him  a  renegade  from  the  Law,  whereby  they 
owned  the  writings  to  be  genuine.  It  is  not  wonderful, 
on  that  showing,  if  St.  Ignatius,  who  had  to  combat 
these  Judaizers,  is  full  of  references  to  the  Epistles,  or 
joins  in  one  ascription  SS.  Peter  and  Paul.  His  dis- 
ciple, Polycarp,  writing  to  the  Philippians,  naturally 
commemorates  the  Letter  (sing,  or  plur.  meaning  doubt- 
ful) which  was  their  title  to  fame.  When  St.  Clement 
of  Rome  is  exhorting  the  Corinthians,  he  says  to  them, 
"Take  into  your  hands  the  epistle  of  blessed  Paul  the 
Apostle.  What  did  he  at  first  write  to  you  in  the 
beginning  of  the  Gospel  ?  Verily,  he  did  by  the  spirit 
admonish  you  concerning  himself  and  Cephas  and 
Apollos."^     Here,  now,  we  have  1  cached  the  first  cen- 

^  Clem.  Rom.,  Cor.,  47. 


PA  LEY'S  ARGUMENTS  1 83 

tury,  when  St.  John  was  h'ving,  and  the  witness  comes 
from  Rome  and  its  bishop,  where  Gnostic  influences 
could  have  had  no  access.  To  overthrow  such  evi- 
dence, the  whole  Christian  remains  between  95  and 
140,  saturated  as  they  are  with  Pauline  ideas  or  support- 
ing them,  must  be  flung  away  as  baseless  fabrications.^ 

Paley's  Horse  Paulinas. — "When  we  take  into  our 
hands,"  said  Paley,  speaking  of  these  documents  now 
under  consideration,  "  the  letters  which  the  suffrage 
and  consent  of  antiquity  has  thus  transmitted  to  us, 
the  first  thing  that  strikes  our  attention  is  the  air  of 
reality  and  business,  as  well  as  of  seriousness  and  con- 
viction, which  pervades  the  whole.  Let  the  sceptic 
read  them.  If  he  be  not  sensible  of  these  qualities  in 
them,  the  argument  can  have  no  weight  with  him.  If 
he  be,  if  he  perceive  in  almost  every  page  the  language 
of  a  mind  actuated  by  real  occasions,  and  operating 
upon  real  circumstances,  I  would  wish  it  to  be  observed 
that  the  proof  which  arises  from  this  perception  is  not 
to  be  deemed  occult  or  imaginary,  because  it  is  incap- 
able of  being  drawn  out  in  words,  or  of  being  conveyed 
to  the  apprehension  of  the  reader  in  any  other  way, 
than  by  sending  him  to  the  books  themselves."  - 

These  admirable  observations,  enforced  as  they  can 
be  whenever  we  choose  by  studying  the  Epistles,  dispose 
altogether  of  the  notion  that  a  forger  intent  upon 
abstract  religious  themes,  at  a  distance  of  sixty  or 
seventy  years  from  the  period  selected,  could  produce 
writings  minute  and  accurate  enough  in  their  least 
obvious  coincidences  to  sumve  the  ordeal  which  our 
documents  have  undergone.  "  St.  Paul's  Epistles,"  to 
quote  Paley  a  second  time,  "are  connected  with  his 
history  by  their  peculiarity,  and  by  the  numerous  cir- 
cumstances which  are  found  in  them."  They  challenge 
comparison  with  another  volume,  the  Book  of  the  Acts, 
to  which  they  never  allude,  and  the  independence  of 

*  References  in  Man.  Bibl.,  iv.  181-89 ;  and  see  infra. 
^Hor.  Paulin,,  366,  Howson's  ed. 


1 84  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

which  is  guaranteed  by  its  approaching  the  same  events 
from  a  point  of  view  so  different  as  to  give  rise  to  the 
difficulties  mentioned  above  and  others  like  them.  But 
the  Epistles  are  never  found  in  the  wrong.  Yet  their 
consistency  is  not,  neither  could  it  be,  an  effect  of  design, 
for  it  comes  out  by  "  hints,  expressions  and  single  words 
dropping  as  it  were  fortuitously  from  the  pen  of  the 
writer " ;  it  is  known  to  us  by  subtle  and  circuitous 
references  wholly  beyond  the  skill  of  the  most  accom- 
plished romancer,  but  impossible  when  two  several 
unconnected  compositions,  the  Acts  and  the  Letters, 
are  in  question.  This  argument,  which  is  positive  in 
its  details  and  cumulative  in  its  force,  no  sceptic  has 
ever  directly  assailed.  It  applies  so  triumphantly  to 
the  four  chief  Epistles  that  F,  C.  Baur  and  his  followers 
did  not  venture  to  reject  them. 

And  let  it  be  remembered  that  Paley's  reasoning 
does  not  simply  trace  the  authorship  of  these  Letters  to 
one  individual  man ;  it  proves  likewise  that  St.  Paul, 
and  none  but  St.  Paul,  was  the  author.  For,  "  what- 
ever ascertains  the  original  of  one  Epistle,  in  some 
measure  establishes  the  authority  of  the  rest "  ;  and  it 
is  our  extreme  critics  who  grant  that  they  arose  in  the 
same  circle  and  have  an  inward  unity.  This  will  seem 
all  the  more  remarkable,  and  a  convincing  token  of 
their  traditional  source,  inasmuch  as  "they  form  no 
continued  stoiy  ;  they  compose  no  regular  correspond- 
ence ;  they  comprise  not  the  transactions  of  any  parti- 
cular period  ;  they  carry  on  no  connection  of  argument ; 
they  depend  not  on  one  another  ;  except  in  one  or  two 
instances  they  refer  not  to  one  another".^ 

It  thus  happens,  in  the  case  of  St.  Paul,  that  internal 
evidence  properly  handled,  may  attain  the  high-water 
mark  of  credibility.  And  the  fact  that,  notwithstand- 
ing such  clear  circumstantial  proof,  which  is  multiplied 
tenfold  by  the  number  of  the  Letters  and  their  inde- 

1  Paley,  ut  supra,  15-17. 


i 


TO  THE  ROAfANS  1 85 

pendence  of  each  other,  his  authorship  has  been  called 
in  question,  should  put  us  on  our  guard  against  critics 
whose  want  of  the  judging  faculty  is  so  manifestly 
shown. 

The  Epistles  Severally — Romans. — Entering  on  a 
brief  consideration  of  details,  we  may  cite  the  words  in 
1866  of  F.  C.  Baur,  the  founder  of  the  Tubingen  school : 
"  Against  these  four  Epistles  (Rom.,  i  and  2  Corinthi- 
ans, and  Galatians)  not  only  has  the  slightest  suspicion 
of  spuriousness  never  been  raised,  but  they  bear  on 
their  front  the  mark  of  Pauline  originality  in  such  a 
degree  that  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  by  what  right 
any  critical  doubt  could  assert  itself  regarding  them". 
To  the  same  effect  Schmiedel :  "  If  the  four  Epistles  are 
to  stand  or  fall  together,  i  Clem.  Rom.  would  be  proof 
enough  of  their  genuineness  "} 

The  Epistle  to  the  Romans  (as  we  gather  from  xv. 
23-26 ;  xvi.  I,  3,  21,  23)  was  written  at  Corinth  on  the 
eve  of  St.  Paul's  last  journey  to  Jerusalem,  probably 
about  Pentecost,  58  A.D. ;  and  was  sent  by  Phoebe, 
.servant  {i.e.  deaconess)  of  the  Church  at  Cenchrea.  It 
has  several  distinct  pauses  or  minor  conclusions — xi.  36 ; 
XV.  33  ;  and  it  travels  down  in  a  way  which  other  writ- 
ings of  the  Apostle  exhibit,  from  the  loftiest  dogmatic 
teaching  to  matters  of  conduct  and  daily  practice. 
Chapter  xvi.,  with  its  abundant  messages  to  persons 
in  Rome,  has  created  some  objection  ;  how  should  St. 
Paul  have  known  these  many,  before  he  had  paid  the 
capital  a  visit  ?  But  the  proposal  to  detach  it  from  its 
place  and  join  it,  say,  to  Ephesians,  has  greater  diffi- 
culties. In  estimating  a  literature  so  fragmentary  we 
should  never  forget  our  own  ignorance.  There  will  be 
particulars  which  we  cannot  explain,  obscurities  not  to 
be  cleared  up  without  a  knowledge  of  things  irrecover- 
ably lost.  Among  these  are  the  first  beginnings  of  the 
Roman  Church,  its  character,  to  what  extent  Jewish  or 

>  E.  Bi.,  "  Paul,"  sec.  3  ;  "  Galat,,"  6-9  ;  "  Epist.  Lit.,"  7-9. 


1 86  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Gentile  (though  St.  Paul  writes  as  to  Hebrew  Christians 
who  need  enlightenment  about  the  New  Law),  and  the 
time  of  St.  Peter's  advent  in  the  city.  Historians  like 
Eusebius  felt  no  trouble  in  dating  that  association  as 
far  back  as  42  ;  and  Harnack  has  done  much  to  reha- 
bilitate the  Eusebian  chronology ;  but  St,  Paul  declares 
his  reluctance  to  build  on  any  other  man's  foundation, 
and  his  silence  tells  unfavourably  against  the  old  opinion 
(Romans  xv.  20;  cf.  Acts  xix.  21).  He  would  surely 
have  sent  greeting  to  the  chief  of  the  Apostles,  or 
referred  to  him,  so  the  argument  runs,  had  St.  Peter 
taught  in  Rome  already.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  clear 
that  a  great  and  flourishing  congregation,  whose  faith 
was  everywhere  celebrated,  abode  in  the  Jewish  quarters 
under  the  Janiculum,  when  the  Epistle  was  despatched.^ 
Six  years  later,  an  "  immense  multitude,"  according  to 
Tacitus  {Annals,  xv.  44),  suffered  in  the  persecution  of 
Nero.  Catholic  divines  attribute  St.  Paul's  omission  to 
St.  Peter's  long  and  frequent  absence  from  Rome  on 
apostolic  errands.  However,  all  the  claims  of  theology 
are  met  by  the  undoubted  allusion  in  i  Peter  v.  1 3, 
"The  Church  that  is  in  Babylon,  elect,  saluteth  you". 
And  various  hypotheses  might  be  imagined  which  would 
justify  St.  Paul  in  addressing  to  a  community  this  doc- 
trinal treatise  wherein  he  claims  no  special  power  as 
over  disciples,  unlike  his  attitude  towards  the  churches 
he  had  founded.  The  difference  is  admirably  shown 
by  Paley.i 

Not  to  insist  on  the  passage  2  Peter  iii,  15,  16,  refer- 
ences are  found,  more  or  less  distinct,  to  this  Roman 
Letter  in  Clement's  Epistle,  in  Polycarp,  Justin  M., 
Irenaeus  who  quotes  from  it  as  many  as  fifty  times,  and 
in  Tertullian  who  does  so  twice  as  often.  It  holds 
the  first  rank  in  Muratorian  Canon.  Theophilus  of 
Antioch  (180  A.D.)  quotes  xiii.  7  as  a  "divine  word," 
i.e.  Scripture.     Basilides  (125)  and  Marcion,  who  was 

^Hor.  Paulin.,  54-60;  Harnack,  Gesch.  der  altchr.  Lit.,  ii.  233-39, 
for  Pauline  chronology. 


TO  THE  CORINTHIANS  1 87 

at  Rome  in  138,  knew  it  "as  an  authoritative  work  of 
tlic  Apostle".  To  contravene  such  testimonies  nothing 
whatever  is  alleged  except  a  priori  theorising.^  The 
best  answer  is  simply  to  read  the  Epistle  as  a  human 
document,  and  judge  whether  it  could  be  wrought  by 
the  hand  of  a  forger.  If  it  implies  a  great  and  early 
development  of  Christianity  in  Rome,  and  if  this  may 
not  be  conceived  without  an  Apostle's  presence,  then 
so  much  the  more  likely  does  St.  Peter's  Claudian 
journey  thither  become. 

1  Corinthians. — TheFirstof  Corinthians  was  written 
from  Ephesus,  about  Easter,  56,  in  reply  to  a  Letter 
from  the  Church  that  St.  Paul  had  set  up  in  Corinth 
on  a  previous  mission  (i  Cor.  xvi.  5,  8,  19 ;  r/!  also 
Acts  xviii.  1-4,  18,  19,  24).  We  have  given  St. 
Clement's  reference,  when  rebuking  a  later  generation, 
as  to  the  most  public  of  documents,  well  known  in 
Greece  and  Italy.  Internal  evidence  makes  it  impos- 
sible to  question  the  Pauline  authorship  unless  by 
overthrowing  all  canons  of  probability.  There  never 
was  any  doubt  of  the  Epistle  before  these  last  years, 
and  even  now  such  objections  are  not  taken  seriously. 
They  may  be  safely  neglected. 

2  Corinthians.— The  Second  of  Corinthians,  written 
in  Macedonia,  sent,  it  would  appear,  from  Philippi, 
belongs  to  57  A.D.  or  thereabouts.  It  is  a  direct  sequel 
of  the  First,  full  of  individual  traits,  was  always  acknow- 
ledged, and  raises  no  questions  except  regarding  its 
integrity,  which  however  stands  firm  against  the  over- 
precise  rules  of  composition  that  St.  Paul  certainly  did 
not  observe.  Three  sections  may  be  noted,  i.-vii. ; 
viii.-ix. ;  x.-xii.  There  is  no  need  to  suppose  that 
another  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  has  been  lost. 

Galatians. — To  the  Galatians  the  Apostle  wrote, 
probabl}-  from  Corinth  in  57,  that  letter  which  among 
all  he  has  left  is  the  most  personal  and  characteristic. 
"  For  the  history  of  primitive  Christianity  Galatians  is 

^  For  instance,  such  as  "  Romans''  by  v.  Manen,  E.  Bi.,  sees.  6-19. 


1 88  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

an  historical  source  of  the  first  order."  In  point  of 
time  it  follows  i  and  2  Corinthians,  and  may  be  regarded 
as  a  sketch  prelusive  of  Romans,  with  which  in  language 
and  manner  of  thought  it  shows  numerous  affinities. 
Its  relation  to  Acts  xv.,  and  the  problems  raised  there- 
by, have  been  noted  previously.  Ecclesiastical  tradi- 
tion always  admitted  the  writing  as  St.  Paul's,  in  spite 
of  the  grave  differences  among  Christians  and  the 
incident  at  Antioch  in  which  St.  Peter  was  involved. 
Early  heretics  and  later  Rationalists  have  done  the 
same ;  and,  in  truth,  no  ancient  composition  is  better 
authenticated. 

I  and  3  Thessalonians. — It  will  conduce  to  a  more 
critical  understanding  if  we  place  here  i  and  2  Thes- 
salonians. The  subscription,  "written  at  Athens,"  is 
commonly  disregarded.  Corinth  seems  to  be  indicated, 
during  the  Apostle's  first  visit,  by  "  Paul,  Timothy  and 
Silvanus"  in  the  opening,  for  these  three  were  never, 
it  is  said,  together  again.  Dates  have  been  fixed,  vary- 
ing from  48  to  53.  Some  judges  assign  Galatians  to 
a  still  earlier  period  ;  but  this  view  finds  little  favour, 
and  Thessalonians  are  reckoned  the  beginning  of  St. 
Paul's  correspondence.  The  external  evidence  is  the 
same  as  for  the  whole  Apostolicon.  The  internal,  as 
concerns  the  First  Epistle,  is  remarkably  strong.  Its 
revelation  of  the  author's  character,  its  familiar  and 
personal  tone,  the  absence  of  a  doctrinal  or  polemic 
interest  which  would  lead  to  forgery,  the  curious  but 
only  partial  agreement  with  Acts  xvii.,  completely 
warrant  acceptance.  And  the  Second  follows  natur- 
ally on  the  First,  clearing  up  the  converts'  mistaken 
interpretation  of  what  St,  Paul  had  written  about  our 
Lord's  Parousia.  But  so  large  is  the  verbal  resem- 
blance that  a  plagiary's  hand,  copying  the  First  ser- 
vilely, has  been  suspected.  This  objection,  in  a  stronger 
form,  recurs  with  Ephesians  and  Colossians.  Did  St. 
Paul  repeat  his  own  sentences  in  a  manner  so  remark- 
able ?     Various   expedients   will    meet   the   difficulty. 


COLOSSIANS—EPHESIANS  1 89 

which  belongs  strictly  to  literature  and  can  have  no 
great  historical  importance.  If  2  Thess.  turned  out  to 
be  a  doublet  of  the  First  Epistle,  no  dogma  would 
thereby  lose  or  gain  ;  but  we  are  not  required  to  take 
up  that  position.  The  supposed  imminence  of  our 
Lord's  second  coming  is  alone  sufficient  to  prove  that 
I  Thess.  could  not  have  been  written  after  St.  Paul's 
death.  And  a  fabrication  moulded  on  it  during  his 
lifetime  would  not  long  escape  detection.  The  authen- 
ticity of  I  Thess.  denied  forty  years  ago  by  many 
.scholars,  is  now  admitted  except  in  the  circle  which 
rejects  St.  Paul  as  a  sacred  writer.^ 

The  Christology  of  St.  Paul. — Ephesians,  Colossians, 
Philemon,  make  up  a  distinct  section,  which  must  be 
viewed  as  a  whole.  The  Letters  were  composed  and 
sent  off  at  one  time,  during  St.  Paul's  first  Roman 
imprisonment,  between  60  and  64.  If  we  assume  his 
martyrdom  to  have  taken  place  so  early  as  the  latter 
year,  then  60  will  not  be  a  premature  date  for  this 
correspondence.  Difficulties,  as  regards  Philemon,  there 
are  none ;  and  this  taking  instance  of  the  Apostle's 
tender  disposition  toward  slaves  under  the  hard  con- 
ditions of  antiquity,  furnishes  proofs,  by  its  names, 
allusions,  and  the  like,  which  recommend  to  our  cre- 
dence the  Tractates  sent  along  with  it.  They  share  in 
the  attestations  which  we  have  so  often  recited  concern- 
ing all  the  Epistles.  An  occasion  is  found  for  them  in 
the  visit  of  Epaphras  to  St.  Paul,  bringing  an  account 
of  the  perils  which  threatened  believers  at  Colossae  from 
a  school  of  Judaizing  Gnostics,  the  heralds  to  a  coming 
generation  of  dreamers  about  angelology,  emanations, 
myths  and  magical  rites,  such  as  decadent  Hebraism 
■fostered.  See  Juvenal  and  other  classic  authors,  who 
confirm  what  we  know  from  apocryphal  writings,  150 
B.C.  to  150  A.D.^ 

i£.  Bi.,  "  Thessals.,"  sees.  8-10. 

-Juvenal,  vi.  542-47;  Plutarch,  De  Superstit.,  3;  Lucian,  De  Morte 
Peregr.,  13  ;  Philapatr.,  16. 


1 90  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Relation  of  Ephesians  to  Colossians. — But  internal 
criticism  ofifers  more  than  one  problem.  The  style  is 
in  many  respects  unlike  that  of  St,  Paul  as  we  have 
learned  it  in  Romans,  etc.,  though  but  two,  or  at  most 
four,  years  only  would  have  elapsed  between  these  com- 
positions. Is  not  the  doctrine  too  suddenly  developed  ? 
and  how  explain  the  absence  of  particular  greetings  to 
his  own  Church  at  Ephesus  on  the  Apostle's  part,  when 
he  had  dwelt  there  three  years  and  taken  so  affection- 
ate a  leave  of  its  elders  ? 

To  the  last  query  answer  is  made  that  the  Letter  was 
not  perhaps  addressed  to  Ephesus.  In  good  MSS.  the 
ascription  is  wanting ;  it  was  not  certain  to  St.  Jerome 
or  St.  Basil ;  we  may  define  the  treatise  to  be  a  "  Ca- 
tholic Epistle,"  sent  round  to  the  Churches  in  proconsular 
Asia.  Should  this  explanation  be  set  aside,  another 
way,  probable  in  the  eyes  of  many  judges  (but  to  us 
not  so),  would  be  the  detaching  of  chapter  xvi.  from 
Romans  and  completing  Ephesians  with  it.  As  re- 
gards doctrine — and  what  we  have  to  say  is  true  of 
Colossians  likewise— the  mystical  tendencies  of  Judaism 
were  long  antecedent  to  St.  Paul.  Wherever  Chris- 
tianity took  root,  questions  of  that  nature  could  not  fail 
to  spring  up ;  for  the  monotheistic  belief  must  be  recon- 
ciled with  our  Lord's  Divine  claims,  and  how  was  it  to 
be  done  ?  Moreover,  St.  Paul  himself  had  insisted  on 
the  depth  of  the  mystery  which  he  was  commissioned 
to  preach ;  from  the  thoughts  of  Romans  (viii.  38,  39 ; 
xi-  33,  36),  I  Cor.  (ii.  6-16),  2  Cor.  (iii.  6-18),  the 
mind  is  carried  into  a  region  of  genuine  Gnosis,  and 
Catholic  theology  may  be  said  to  begin.  St.  Paul  had 
a  doctrine  of  justification ;  could  he  pass  through  life 
without  also  setting  in  order  his  philosophy  of  the  un- 
seen, as  touching  God  and  His  Christ,  the  angels  and 
the  powers  of  the  world  to  come  ? 

Why  the  Language  Novel. —  It  must  be  granted 
that  the  usus  verborum  in  both  Letters,  though  con- 
stantly Pauline,  is  not  devoid  of  peculiarities.     Colos- 


TO  THE  PHILIPPIANS  I9I 

sians,  written  perhaps  first,  may  have  derived  its  new 
language  from  the  report  of  F^paphras,  who  would  tell 
what  the  Gnostic  leaders  had  been  saying  in  their  own 
words.  To  appropriate  and  adapt  them  to  our  Lord 
might  be  a  legitimate  triumph  of  the  apologist.  Again, 
St,  Paul  was  answering  from  hearsay,  as  to  the  points 
in  a  lawyer's  brief;  he  had  not  met  these  innovators  or 
founded  the  Church  at  Colossal.  Taking  Ephesians  to 
be  ajx  jencyclical  Letter,  we  understand  why  it  should 
repeat  much  in  almost  the  same  terms  from  a  document 
just  composed,  should  lay  stress  on  Church  unity  as 
the  safeguard  against  speculations  of  so  wild  a  genius, 
and  should  omit  personal  messages.  Yet,  "  so  far  as  it 
can  be  done  within  the  compass  of  one  short  Letter, 
Paul  has  laid  down  in  Ephesians  something  like  ^ 
e;chaustive  outline  of  his  Gospel".^ 

Philippians.— Philippians,  a  strikingly  beautiful  and 
affecting  Letter  to  the  first  Church  that  he  had  founded 
in  Europe,  was,  it  is  thought,  St.  Paul's  concluding 
epistle  from  Rome  during  the  years  60-64.  I^  abounds 
in  personal  reminiscences,  makes  much  of  Epaphroditus 
(who  is  not  the  Epaphras  of  Colossae),  contains  parallel 
passages  and  terms  by  which  to  connect  it  with  previous 
writings,  is  closely  in  touch  with  Ephesians-Colossians, 
and  was  quoted  in  plain  language  by  Polycarp  (115 
according  to  Harnack)  when  himself  writing  to  the 
same  Church  and  transmitting  thereto  the  Ignatian 
documents.  It  is  not  probable  that  he  had  in  view 
more  than  one  Pauline  Letter.  Philippians  has  with- 
stood the  a  priori  rejection  inflicted  on  it  by  Tubingen, 
and  is  happy  in  possessing  those  inimitable  yet  unde- 
signed traits  by  which  we  are  made  familiar  with  St. 
Paul  as  with  scarcely  any  other  man,  Christian,  Jew  or 
heathen,  of  the  period.  It  shows  him  prepared  to  live 
or  die,  but  expecting  speedy  trial  and,  if  it  please  God, 
deliverance.       The  notion   that    another   should    have 

1  E.  St.,  "  Coloss."  and  "  Ephes.,"  sees.  11-15  ;  Lightfoot,  Coloss. ; 
Igtiat.,  i.  376  ;  Vigouroux,  M.  B.,  iv.,  412. 


192  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

written  in  such  a  strain,  sixty  years  after  his  death,  is 
fantastic  and  demonstrably  false.^ 

Last  Group — Pastoral  Epistles. — Unlike  the  ten 
pieces  which  we  have  thus  run  over,  the  Pastoral  three 
— I  and  2  Timothy  and  Titus — cannot  be  brought 
into  connection  with  such  a  document  as  the  Acts,  or 
with  historical  occasions  by  which  to  test  them.  Into 
the  framework  of  St.  Paul's  life,  as  we  gather  it  from 
the  rest  of  Scripture,  they  have  never  been  duly  fitted. 
Modern  critics,  who  terminate  the  Apostle's  career  in 
64  A.D.  and  do  not  allow  his  second  Roman  captivity, 
either  reject  them  altogether  (which  is  the  prevailing 
voice)  or  assign  them  to  the  years  when  Ephesians- 
Philippians  were  sent  out.  Orthodox  commentators 
throw  them  forward  to  64-67,  suggest  a  new  missionary 
round  of  the  Apostle  (from  Rome  to  Asia  by  way  of 
Crete,  for  instance,  and  from  Ephesus  to  Macedonia 
and  Epirus)  which  would  explain  his  waiting  i  Tim. 
and  Titus,  while  he  perhaps  journeyed  into  Spain,  and 
returning  thence  finished  his  course  under  Nero  in 
Rome.  The  Second  to  Timothy  is  clear  on  this  latter 
place  and  these  circumstances.  No  fewer  than  seven- 
teen persons  are  named  in  2  Tim.  iv.,  of  whom  Pudens, 
Linus,  and  Claudia  belong  to  the  Roman  Church 
between  60  and  100  A.D.  Hypothetical  journeys  do 
not,  indeed,  give  us  means  of  verification  ;  but  they 
prove  that  the  Epistles  need  not  be  fictitious,  and  they 
cast  out  threads  in  the  direction  of  the  group  Colos- 
sians-Ephesians,  in  accordance  with  St.  Paul's  express 
designs  if  he  should  be  set  free.- 

Difficulties  and  Answers. — Rejected  by  Marcion, 
these  Letters  were  public  property  in  1 30.  They  present 
difficulties  of  language,  but  contain  various  undoubted 
marks  of  the  Apostle's  speech  and  manner.  The 
recognition  of  episcopacy  in  so  advanced  a  stage  is 
another  objection  ;  but  we  cannot  argue  from  negatives, 

^  Hastings,  D.  B.,  ad  vocem. 

^HorcB  Paulina,  292-333  ;  for  above  conjecture,  332. 


THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES  193 

and  the  history  of  Church-beginnings  is  highly  debat- 
able.    Some   revision  of  these  Pastoral   Letters  by  a 
younger  hand,  as  many  critics  suggest,  would  keep  the 
Pauline  substance,  respect  such  early  witnesses  as  are 
on   record,  and  account   for  the   terminology.     When 
"  moderate  "  critics  assign  to  them  a  "  communal  orig-in," 
and   suppose  the  form   to   be  late  (under  Trajan,  or 
Ignatian    period)  while  notes  or  fragments  from  the 
hand  of  the  Apostle,  or  even  his  sayings  in  conversa- 
tion, are  used  as  concrete  for  the  literary  edifice,  they 
bring  out  some  momentous  truths.     It  was  the  Church 
that  preserved  our  Christian  writings,  that  recited  them 
publicly,  watched  over  their  text,  and  defended  them 
against  heretics.     The  Pastoral  Letters,  employed  by 
Ignatius  and    Polycarp,  claim  a  position  in   the  first 
century ;  and  whether  the  form  be  Pauline  to  its  whole 
extent,  or  merely  "  sub-Pauline,"  the  spirit  and  life  are 
Apostolic.     "  One  to  Philemon,  to  Titus  one,  and  two 
addressed  to  Timothy,  in  affection  and  love,"  says  the 
Muratorian  Canon,  "have  been  sanctified  in  the  order- 
ing of  ecclesiastical  discipline."     Or,  as  a  recent  writer 
puts  it,  thanks  to  such  teaching  as  the  Pastorals  contain, 
ordinary   Christians  came  through   the   struggle  with 
Gnosticism  safe  in  possessing  these  four  truths,  "  The 
unity  of  the  Creator  and  Redeemer,  the  unique  and 
sufficient  value  of  Jesus  for  redemption  and  salvation, 
the  vital  tie  between  morals  and  faith,  and  the  secure 
future  assured  to  the  Church  of  God  "} 

To  the  fiebrews. — Hebrews,  by  its  position  in  later 
Greek  MSS.  and"  Vulgate,  at  once  raises  the  inquiry 
how  so  large  and  admirable  a  tractate  should  not  have 
been  reckoned  with  other  principal  Epistles  if  its  author 
were  known.  It  is  quoted,  also,  by  Clement  Rom. 
abundantly,  but  not  as  St,^aul!s.  The  Latin  custom, 
we  heard  St.  Jerome  say,  was  to  leave  it  out  of  the 
Canon.     In  the  Catalogue  of  sacred  writers  he  names 

'£.  BL,  "Timothy,"  s-ecs.  11-16. 
^3 


194  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

St.  Paul  author  of  the  Thirteen  Epistles,  and  goes  on, 
"  That  to  the  Hebrews  which  is  in  circulation  is  held 
not  to  be  his,  on  account  of  the  difference  of  style  and 
speech  ".  Tertullian,  he  adds,  ascribed  it  to  Barnabas  ; 
others  to  St.  Luke;  some  to  St.  Clement.^  In  the 
Alexandrian  Church  it  was  received  time  out  of  mind, 
and  given  to  the  Apostle.  But  Origen  distinguished 
between  the  ideas,  which  might  be  Pauline,  and  the 
language,  which  could  not  be ;  this,  too,  we  learn  from 
St.  Jerome,  was  what  the  attribution  to  Clement  signi- 
fied,— erroneously,  for  the  construction  of  the  Epistle 
is  not  Hebraic  but  regular  and  has  affinities  with  the 
style  of  the  Acts.  From  a  literary  point  of  view 
nothing  can  be  less  probable  than  that  the  highly 
original  manner  which  we  perceive  in  Romans,  Corin- 
thians, etc.,  should  have  been  exchanged  by  St.  Paul 
for  one  so  opposite,  if  he  held  the  pen  himself  For 
the  Epistle  is  constructed  according  to  the  methodof 
late  Greek  rhetoric, 

Pauline  Ideas  and  Substance. — St.  Jerome,  on  his 
part,  acknowledged  the  inspiration  and  canonicity  of 
Hebrews,  though  doubtful  concerning  the  author,  whom 
he  would  have  wished  to  be  the  Apostle.  "Jt  niatters 
not  whose  it  be,"  said  the  great  Bible  scholar,  "  since 
it  comes  from  an  ecclesiastical  man  and  is  daily  cele- 
brated in  the  Church  recitation."  His  words  carried 
the  event.  Theologians  teach,  says  the  widely  used 
Manuel  Bibliqjie  of  Vigouroux  and  Bacuez,  that  St. 
Paul's  authorship  is  not,  in  this  case,  an  article  of  faith. 
For  the  Epistle  does  not  profess  to  come  from  him. 
And  the  Tridentine  ascription  defines  per  se  none  of 
those  questions.-  Yet  that  Pauline  ideas  and  even 
terms  enter  deeply  into  the  composition  is  admitted, 
of  course  by  our  divines,  but  also  in  critical  circles. 
Extrinsic  evidence  of  the  Apostolic  source  is  alleged 
from  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (|  386) ;  Origen,  so  far  as 

^/4rf  Panlin  ;  Catalog.  Scrip,  Eccles,        ^Man.  Bihl.,  iv.  482. 


TO  THE  HEBREWS  igS 

he  witnesses  to  the  tradition  of  Alexandria ;  St.  John 
Chrysostom  (f407)  for  Antioch,  and  Clem.  Alex. 
(+217)  who  refers  to  it  as  Pauline,  but  who  felt  the 
difficulty  of  which  all  moderns  and  many  ancients 
have  been  sensible.  St.  Athanasius,  in  the  Festal 
Catalogue,  reckons  fourteen  Letters  of  St.  Paul  and 
places  Hebrews  in  front  of  the  Pastorals.  While, 
therefore,  no  doubt  can  be  advanced  disparaging  to 
its  rank  in  the  Canon,  this  "  learned  and  incomparable" 
work,  as  Bossuet  called  it,  is  either  the  Apostle's  in 
style  no  less  than  teaching,  or  if  (to  go  by  probabilities) 
the  language  cannot  be  his,  nay,  if  the  general  course 
of  reasoning  belongs  to  another, — ApoUos,  Barnabas, 
whoever  seems  more  likely, — the  central  idea  of  re- 
demption from  the  Mosaic  Law  and  priesthood  comes 
to  us  directly  out  of  Galatians  and  Romans.  Under 
these  circumstances  the  date  will  not  much  signify. 
The  persecution  under  Domitian  has  been  suggested. 
And  modern  views  incline  to  regard  the  work  as 
directed  from  Asia  to  Christians  in  Rome,  not  born 
Hebrews  but  Gentiles.  If  Apollos  be  the  writer,  our 
Epistle  would  exhibit  a  nobler  specimen  of  the  Alex- 
andrian wisdom  than  Philo  himself.^ 

The  Catholic  Epistles — St.  James. — Our  last  notes 
are  to  deal  with  the  "  Catholic  Epistles"  and  the  Apo- 
calypse.    They  may  be  very  brief 

The  Epistle  of  James  is,  according  to  Eusebius, 
among  the  antilegoviena,  not  admitted  by  all  the 
Churches.  St.  Jerome  says,  "  It  is  asserted  to  have 
been  brought  in  b)'  somebody  else  under  his  name ". 
St.  Chrysostom  distinguished  the  author,  who  is  cer- 
tainly James  the  Just  (Obliam)  known  in  Josephus,  from 
James  the  son  of  Zebedee  and  James  the  son  of  Alpheus. 
He  is  commonly  styled  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  ;  and  we 
must  identify  him,  it  would  appear  (despite  St.  John 
Chrysostom)  with  James  "  the  brother  of  the  Lord  "  in 

^Uan.  Bibl.,  iv.  482-87. 
13  * 


196  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Galatians  and  Acts.  He  was  a  Christian  after  the  strong 
Hebrew  type.  His  Letter,  in  very  good  Greek  of  its 
kind,  has  in  view  the  Pauline  doctrine  which  Romans 
copiously  expressed,  and  is  written  from  a  different, 
though  as  theologians  prove,  not  a  contrary  standing- 
ground.  It  represents  in  the  discussion  of  faith  and 
works  another  side  than  St.  Paul  had  insisted  on, — 
nor  does  it  attain  his  depth  of  spiritual  exposition. 
Such  diversities  of  thought  in  documents  which  are 
alike  due  to  the  divine  impulse  meet  us  throughout 
Scripture ;  in  the  New  Testament  they  number  the 
steps  by  which  dogma  was  fashioned  into  its  perma- 
nent shape.  The  Letter  itself  indicates  a  close  and 
early  acquaintance  with  our  Lord's  teaching  ;  in  many 
places  it  is  an  echo  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
Some  Churches  were  slow  to  receive  it,  because  of  the 
seeming  opposition  to  Pauline  ideas ;  but  it  completes 
and  safeguards  that  bold  theology,  as  was  shown  at  the 
rise  of  Lutheranism.  We  shall  always  need  a  protest 
like  St.  James's  against  antinomian  tendencies  which, 
by  denying  the  merit  of  Christian  good  works,  would 
pave  the  way  towards  rejection  of  the  moral  code. 
The  date  is  about  60.  St.  James  was  martyred  in 
62  or  63.^ 

I  and  2  Peter — St.  Jude. — i  St.  Peter  is  practically 
undisputed  by  the  ancients.  It  offers  reminiscences  of 
St.  Paul  in  speech  and  attitude  ;  it  was  certainly  dated 
from  Rome  (the  mystic  Babylon  of  Jews  whether  Phari- 
sees or  Christians)  and  its  vital  relation  to  our  Lord's 
teaching  in  the  Gospels  has  been  often  dwelt  upon.'^  It 
belongs  to  some  year  after  60.  Copious  references  in 
Clem.  Rom. ;  others  in  Papias  and  Polycarp  ;  the  name 
is  given  by  Irenaeus,  perhaps  in  the  Frag.  Muratori ; 
by  Tertullian,  Clem.  Alex.,  Origen  ;  and  2  Peter  alludes 
to  it  expressly.  But  2  Peter  itself,  while  claiming  in 
so  many  words  to  be  the  writing  of  the  Apostle,  is  less 

^  Man.  Bibl.,  iv.  577-82.     Batiffol,  Six  Lemons,  22. 
-  Euseb,,  H.  £.,  iii.  3  ;  ii.  15. 


THE  CATHOLIC  EPISTLES  I97 

authenticated  by  early  Church  tradition  than  any  other 
book  of  the  New  Testament  except  the  short  Epistle 
of  Jude,  with  which  it  has  remarkable  affinities.  Of 
both  it  is  to  be  said,  according  to  Eusebius,  that  they 
were  disputed  ;  we  receive  them  on  the  testimony  of 
the  Church,  but  know  nothing  as  regards  their  literary 
provenance.^  St.  Jerome,  who  remarked  the  unlikcness 
of  style  between  i  and  2  Peter,  gave  his  own  explana- 
tion, "  Eor  different  matters  he  employed  divers  inter- 
preters." But  this  will  not  clear  up  the  resemblance 
with  Jude,  "  rejected  by  most,"  or  throw  light  on  the 
question  of  priority.  The  apologist,  whose  concern  is 
chiefly  with  2  Peter,  is  justified  in  pointing  out  how 
improbable  would  be  the  acceptance  late  in  the  second 
century  of  a  writing  hitherto  quite  unknown.  That 
the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  should  be  reckoned  in  it  with 
"  the  other  Scriptures  "  is  taken  by  modern  critics  as 
indicating  a  post- Apostolic  date  ;  and  so  the  way  in 
which  our  Lord's  Parousia  is  handled.  In  the  present 
state  of  our  knowledge  we  cannot  adequately  answer 
these  and  the  like  inquiries.'-^ 

Johannine  Letters, — Of  the  Johannine  Epistles  we 
have  spoken.  The  First  may  well  be  a  preface  to  the 
Fourth  Gospel ;  the  Second  is  addressed  probably  tQ_a 
Church  "elect"  as  St.  Peter  calls  that  of  Rome;  the 
Third  is  to  Gains.  They  repeat  sayings  which  bear  the 
stamp  of  St.  John  at  Ephesus,  according  to  the  famous 
anecdote  in  St.  Jerome.  The  canonicity  of  the  Gospel 
takes  up  these  along  with  it,  as  Apostolic  writings.  No 
question  is  more  ventilated  than  that  of  i  Jn.  v.  7,  the 
verse  of  the  three  Heavenly  witnesses.  It  is  for  textual 
criticism  to  decide  under  the  Church's  guidance." 

The  Book  of  Revejation. — The  Apocalypse,  recog- 
nised as  coming  from   Sfr' John  son   of  Zebedee  by 

^H.  E.,  iii.  3. 

2  Fuller  treatment  in  Mmi.  Bihl.,  603-5.  On  2  Peter,  Sanday, 
Oracles  of  God,  73;  Bigg,  St.  Peter  and  St.  Jude. 

'^ Man.  B'tbl.,  iv.  624-31,  has  a  fair  discussion  of  i  Jn.  v.  7. 


198  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

most  modern  judges  and  by  all  Catholics,  was  not 
doubted  until  a  late  period  among  the  Eastern  Fathers ; 
and  that  doubt,  which  led  to  rejection  in  time  of  Euse- 
bius,  drew  all  its  force,  not  from  a  break  in  the  tradition 
but  from  hatred  of  the  Millenarian  views  such  as  we 
find  them  in  Irenseus  (Bk.  v.,  xxxiii.-xxxvi.).  It  was 
a  dogmatic  problem,  raised  by  the  teaching  of  the  New 
Testament  so  far  as  it  concerned  our  Lord's  second  ad- 
vent. Hence  we  may  be  sure  that  the  volume  goes  back 
to  the  first  century  and  is  Apostolic.  When  once  the 
Parousia  was  regarded  as  indefinitely  distant,  no  book 
of  a  cast  like  the  Revelation  would  have  made  its  way 
into  the  Canon.  But  the  precise  date  is  a  subject  of 
controversy.  To  Irenceus  and  his  followers,  if  not  to 
Papias,  the  age  of  Domitian  (95  A.D.)  was  approved. 
Those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  with  modern  critics 
explain  the  Apocalypse  as  applying  to  St.  John's  own 
times  (a  reasonable  supposition)  take  it  earlier,  the  year 
68  or  69,  and  see  in  its  pages  the  approaching  fall  of 
Jerusalem.  A  middle  course  would  be  to  imagine  that 
St.  John  in  95  compiled  a  series  of  prophetic  writings 
which  he  bound  up  with  his  preface,  the  "  seven 
epistles,"  and  his  description  of  the  Church  under  its 
symbolic  name  of  the  New  Jerusalem.  No  view  of 
date,  compilation,  or  literal  meaning  has  ever  been 
sanctioned  by  authority. 

But  there  is  something  deeply  significant  in  the  fact 
that  our  Lord  should  have  chosen  His  beloved  disciple 
not  only  to  write  the  last,  the  most  heavenly-minded  of 
the  Gospels,  but  also  to  crown  the  New  Testament  with_ 
a  Prophecy  which  gives,  as  in  perspective,  the  series  of 
conflicts  and  the  final  triumph  whereby  Christian  faith 
overcomes  its  foes,  seen  and  unseen.  All  Scripture  is 
gathered  up  into  such  words  as  these  :  "  And  He  said 
unto  me,  '  It  is  done.  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the 
beginning  and  the  end.  1  will  give  unto  him  that 
is  athirst  of  the  fountain  of  the  water  of  life  freely. 
He   that   overcometh    shall    inherit    all    things ;    and 


THE  APOCALYPSE  199 

I  wUl  be  his  God  and  he  shall  be  My  son'"  (Apoc. 
Here  ends  the  Canon  of  Holy  Scripture, 

'  Afaii.  Bibl.,  iv.  646-56 ;  Euseb.,  H.  E.,  iii.  39,  comp,  with  iii.  25  and 
vii.  25  ;  Hippolyt.,  D« /4n//(7/m^o ;  Aug.,  in  jfoan,  13;  Ep.  118;  Civ. 
Dei,  last  books  ;  Jerome  in  Ps.  149;  that  Apoc.  and  other  Johannine 
writings  were  handed  down  together  Tertull.  witnesses,  "  Instrumentum 
Johannis"  in  Resurrect.,  38;  Pudicit.,  19;  Prascript.,  33.  On  final 
acceptance  of  N.  T.  Deutero-Canon,  Loisj',  ut  supra,  201-7.  For  the 
Pastoral  Epistles,  see  Ramsay's  defence  of  their  historical  setting, 
Sanday's  literary  analysis,  the  external  testimony  in  Hastings'  D.  B., 
and  Knowling  on  the  whole  subject. 


SECTION  III. 

AUTHORITY  AND  INTERPRETATION   OF  HOLY 

WRIT. 

CHAPTER  X. 
THE  DIVINE  ORIGIN  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

The  Inspired  Record.— Christianity  is  a  Revelation 
not  only  in  its  ideas  and  substance,  but  also  in  its  form 
and  record.  It  is,  as  we  said,  a  Revelatio  rcvelata. 
The  Divine  books  which  contain  it  (not  without  tradi- 
tion" in  the  Church)  are  those  set  forth  one  by  one, 
according  to  Florence,  Trent  and  the  Vatican,  as 
canonical  and  inspired.  Taken  altogether,  they  consti- 
tute the  "  Word  of  God  written".  No  man  can  add  to 
these  things;  none  may  take  away  "from  the  words 
of  the  book  of  this  prophecy  ".  It  has  many  human 
writers,  but  God  is  its  author.  And  "all  Scripture, 
inspired  of  God,  is  profitable  to  teach,  to  reprove,  to 
correct,  to  instruct  in  justice,  that  the  man  of  God  may 
be  perfect,  furnished  to  every  good  work  "} 

From  these  first  notions  it  appears  that  Holy  Writ, 
in  make  and  purpose,  stands  alone  among  books.  It  is 
not  a  secular  history,  nor  a  treatise  on  morals  from  the 
pen  of  a  philosopher ;  it  teaches  no  physical  science  ;  it 
does  not  proceed  by  metaphysical  reasoning.  Perhaps 
the  simplest  way  of  describing  it  would  be  to  call  its 
pages  the  inspired  record  of  Revelation.     Whatever  we 

*  Apoc.  xxii.  i8,  19;  2  Tim.  iii.  16  (in  Vg.). 
{200) 


NEED  OF  CHURCH   WITNESS  20I 

meet  in  tliem  falls  under  this  account  of  it.  Much  of 
Scripture  came  to  its  writers  throuf^h  the  channels  of 
ordinary  knowledge,  and  did  not  ask  to  be  revealed. 
But  nothing  was  admitted  into  the  Bible  except  as  it 
furnished  occasion,  matter,  scope,  whereby  the  object 
of  revealed  truth  found  its  fulfilment.  Hence,  from  this 
point  of  view,  we  cannot  look  upon  the  Scriptures  as 
we  do  on  any  other  product  of  human  literature  ;  for 
the  efficient  and  final  causes  to  which  we  owe  them  are 
supernatural.  There  is  a 'divine  element,  the  very 
essence  of  the  Bible,  in  all  its  parts ;  its  primary  author 
is  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Internal  Witness  not  Adequate. — But  every  distinct 
portion  of  Scripture  does  not  tell  us  that  it  was  written 
under  such  an  influence ;  rarely  do  its  sections  affirm 
that  they  are  Scripture  at  all.  We  learn  the  extent 
and  limit  of  the  Canon  (which  is  conterminous  with 
inspired  documents  binding  on  Christians)  not  merely 
by  our  judgment  regarding  its  spiritual  value,  but  from 
the  witness  appointed,  vi.':.,  the  Church.  St.  Paul,  in 
the  text  quoted  above,  lays  down  or  implies  a  principle 
which  affects  "all  Scripture"  ;  but  he  does  not  say  where 
we  shall  find  the  catalogue.  St.  Peter  again  says,  "  No 
prophecy  is  made  by  private  interpretation,"  and  "the 
holy  men  of  God  spake,  inspired  (literally  in  the  Greek, 
'  borne  onward  ')  by  the  Holy  Ghost ".  Yet  neither 
has  he  given  us  the  books  which  were  thus  composed. 
Moreover,  an  internal  criterion  will  not  avail  to  decide: 
(i)  for,  in  fact,  it  has  never  done  so,  all  Churches 
setting  up  their  Bible  on  testimony ;  (2)  because  it 
would  be  hopeless  to  look  for  unanimity  of  impression 
among  different  ages  and  civilisations  ;  (3)  inasmuch  as 
the  Bible  is  an  organic  whole,  and  its  parts,  if  severed 
by  analysis,  would  often  lose  their  vital  meaning.  A 
book  such  as  Esther  or  Canticles,  out  of  its  Scripture- 
frame,  would  surely  not  be  accepted  as  having  a  greater 
religious  importance  than  the  Epistle  of  Clement  Rom., 
or  Barnabas,  or  the  Pastor  of  Hermas,  all  at  one  time 


202  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

read  in  some  Churches  under  the  notion  that  they  were 
inspired.  When  Cathoh'c  tradition  puts  these  aside, 
but  never  hesitates  over  the  Books  of  Kings,  Chron., 
Eccles.  and  other  writings  in  which  the  prophetic 
strain, — "  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter," — is  disputed 
by  modern  critics,  clearly  it  appeals  to  "  the  law  and  the 
testimony,"  it  goes  upon  the  facts,  and  refuses  a  priori 
grounds  of  argument.  We  do  not  first  imagine  a  theory 
of  inspiration  and  then  apply  it ;  we  open  the  volumes 
known  to  be  of  divine  authorship  to  discover  in  them 
what  that  statement  signifies.^ 

The  Spirit  and  His  Influence. — All  our  knowledge  of 
God  is  conveyed  and  expressed  by  likenesses  borrowed 
from  earthly  things.  In  itself  the  one  everlasting  Actus 
Realis  by  which  He  exists  and  does  whatever  proceeds 
from  Him  is  infinitely  simple,  i.e.  not  compounded  of 
various  energies,  nor  does  it  involve  divers  actions  on 
the  part  of  the  Almighty.  We  cannot  understand  a 
truth  so  mysterious  ;  but  reason  teaches  that  it  must 
be  admitted.  Human  language,  therefore,  according.^ 
to  St.  Thomas,  who  follows  Dionysius  Areopagita  in 
his  deep  exposition,  represents  the  Divine  Simplicity 
by  throwing  it  into  facets,  and  names  these  from  their 
finite  results  or  manifestations.  To  bring  out  the  in- 
fTuencc  which  is  here  in  question,  as  it  affects  its  human 
subjects,  Holy  Scripture  reveals  to  us  that  the  "  Spirit 
of  God  "  moves,  overshadows,  guides,  and  controls  them  V'^'^'y^^f. 
for  the  office  which  they  fulfil.  The  word  "  Spirit "  is 
plainly  metaphorical ;  but  in  this  higher  sense  it  has 
been  adopted  by  races  and  literatures  which  did  not 
borrow  it  from  Israel. 

We  must  assume  all  this  and  confine  ourselves  to  the 
Bible.-     In  Genesis  i.  2.  we  read,  "Darkness  was  upon 

^  Man.  Bibl.,  i.  50-53  ;  Loisy,  Can.  N.  T.,  200-7  ;  Gigot,  Gen.  Introd., 
517-35 !  Franzelin,  De  Trad,  et  Script.,  291,  321  (ed.  1S70). 

-  "  Spiritus  spiral  ubi  vult"  represents  in  Vg.  John  iii.  8,  which 
A.  V.  translates  "  The  wind  bloweth  where  it  Hsteth,"  while  Douay 
has  "  The  Spirit  breatheth  where  he  will  ".     A.  V.  agrees  with  context. 


f 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  SPIRIT  203 

the  face  of  the  deep,  and   the  Spirit  of  God   {i-iiacli 
Elohiui)  moved  (or  was  broodinii^)  upon  the  face  of  the 
waters".     J^ut  in  LXX.  this  Hebrew  word  {ruacli)  is 
translated  in  sixteen  different  ways  ;  some  equivalent 
to  the   physical  meaning,  breath  or  wind  ;  others  de- 
noting intelligence;  more  again  laying  stress  on   the 
agitation  which  often  accompanies  the  divine  contact. 
Literally,  we  may  render  inspiration  as  the  "  breath  of 
God  in  Man  ".     It  has  a  superhuman  origin  ;  it  is  known 
by  human  actions,  the  scope  of  w  hich  goes  beyond  what 
tBey  could  in  themselves  accomplish.     On  God's  side 
creative,  on  man's  it  is  receptive.     The  general  efifect_ 
is  called  a  grace  {cJiarisnia)  freely  bestowed,  which  may 
or  may  not  be  associated  with  moral  qualities  in  the 
;;ecipient.     The  writer's  inspiration  is  not  chiefly  on  his 
own  account,  but  that  his  v\ork  may  serve  the  people 
of  God.     Technically,  theologians  define   it  as  gratia_ 
gratis  data,  by   which  they  mean   a   Grace  of  minis- 
tration.^ 

His  Manifold  Operations.  —  With  superhuman 
energy,  therefore,  the  Spirit  in  both  Testaments  comes 
upon  man,  being  symbolised  in  the  storm-wind,  in 
thunder  and  lightning,  in  fire ;  but  also  in  the  still 
small  voice  on  hearing  which  Elijah  wrapped  his  face 
in  his  mantle.  The  afflatus  or  breath,  seizing  on  the 
human  instrument  of  a  sudden,  may  produce  ecstasy, 
wherein  the  prophet,  *'  falling  into  a  trance  but  having 
his  eyes  open,"  speaks  words  of  import  unknown  to  his 
ordinary  self,  perceives  the  distant  or  the  future,  and 
reveals  God's  purposes.  Physical  effects  of  a  more  or 
less  miraculous  nature  may  ensue.  Thus  we  observe  in 
Othniel,  Jephthah,  Samson,^aul,  how  the  Spirit  stirs 
them  up  to  set  Israel  free,  and  in  the  last-named  his 
appointment  as  King  is  followed  by  a  kind  of  fren/.y, 
whence  it  was  a  saying,  "  Is  Saul  also  among  the 
prophets?"     But  another  and  better__gift_\v'as  insight, 

'  St.  Th.,  QiicFst.  Disputat.  de  Verifate,  xii.,  per  tolum. 


204  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

"  He  that  is  now  called  a  pro^heyvas^ejoretime  called 

a  seer".. 

'  Beginning  with  oracular  utterances,  the  "roeh,"  who 
left  on  his  terrified  audience  an  impression  that  he  was 
mad  iineshuggd)  or,  as  the  Greeks  termed  it,  simply  a 
"mantis"  (from  mania),  needed  some  one  to  explain 
what  he  had  given  out  in  trance.  And  so  the  word 
"  prophet"  arose,  signifying  an  interpreter.  Thus  Apollo 
became  the  prophet  of  his  Father  Zeus  in  DelpLi.^ 

But  the  Hebrew  "  nabi,"  (Assyr.  Nebo)  which  we 
render  by  this  Greek  equivalent,  seems  always  to  have 
kept  something  of  its  first  ecstatic  connotation  ;  Ps.  xliv., 
'•  Eructavit  cor  meum  verbum  bonum,"  gives  us  its 
formula,  "  My  heart  overflows  with  a  goodly  matter ". 
And  so  in  Ezekiel  (xx.  46),  "  Drop  thy  word  toward 
the  South  and  prophesy  ".  To  suggest  the  inward  light, 
its  recipient  was  known  as  "  khozeh,"  one  that  looks 
within,  and  he  saw  in  vision  '{khazon).  The  message 
he  brought  was  an  "  oracle  of  Jahweh,"  commanding, 
and  with  promises  or  threats  foretelling,  "  Thus  shall  it 
come  to  pass ".  Three  kinds  of  inspired  persons  may 
be  distinguished, — the  diviner  (commonly  mantis) ;  then 
the  seer  in  trance  ;  lastly,  the  prophet  who  is  a  "  man 
of  the  spirit "  (Hos.  ix.  7)  called  to  his  task  by  the  voice 
of  God,  and  enjoying  a  permanent  relation  with  Him. 
When  'we  study  the  greatest  of  the  line,  Isaiah  or 
Moses,  we  see  that  each  is  at  once  "  forthsayer"  and 
"  foresayer "  ;  that  his  enthusiasm  never  ceases  to  be 
ethical;  that' the  future  is  judged  and  its  figure  drawn 
in  virtue  of  principles  which  constitute  the  divine  order 
of  things.  From  which  it  follows  that  the  prophet  is 
the  mouth  of  Jahweh  and  his  word  is  God's  word.  He 
cannot  be  silent,  or  hold  in  the  fury  of  the  Lord,  or 
speak  otherwise  than  he  is  bidden.'- 

iNum.  xxiv.  2,  4;  Jud.  Hi.  lo;  vi.  34*.  xi.  29;  xiii.  25;  i  Sam  ix. 
9  ;  X.  6,  II.  Pindar,  Frag.,  118;  Eurip.,  Ion.,  369,  413  ;  Plat.,  Phadr., 
244;  Lucian, /l^f-r.,  40.  ,,      .  ,-,    r,  « 

2£.  Bi.,  "  Prophetic  Lit.,"  sees.  5,  12-20;  Hastings,  D.  B.,  113-26. 


ISRAEL  AND  HUMANKIND  205 

Growth  of  Prophecy — The  Narrow  School. — The 

fellow-feeling  for  his  kind  which  animated  even  the 
lowest  of  men  who  had  the  spirit,  grew  by  degrees 
among  a  chosen  few  into  a  zeal  for  righteousness  and 
humanity.  In  Elijah  wg  marvel  at  the  stern  preacher 
of  Jahwch's  claim  on  Israel ;  but  when  we  come  to  the 
Isaianic  period  our  attention  is  arrested  by  a  whole 
group  of  prophets  who  judge  all  nations  according  to 
their  merits  in  God's  sight.  The  religion  of  Mono- 
theism with  its  universal  code  of  morals,  which  had 
been  revealed  in  outline  to  Abraham,  is  established. 
This  gradual  development  allows  for  many  stages,  and 
by  the  side  of  progress  we  note  degeneration.  The 
mere  diviner  sinks  into  a  "false  prophet";  the  old 
official  exjx)under  of  current  religion, — who  was  an 
Israelite  first  of  all,  and  to  whom  Chemosh  or  Baal 
was  only  a  "  strange  god,"  not  ncliushtan^  an  abomina- 
tion,— strives  to  keep  his  footing  over  against  these 
innovators,  careless  as  they  seemed  whether  Israel  went 
down  so  long  as  righteousness  triumphed.  The  distinc- 
tion does  not  lie  exactly  between  falsehood  and  truth, 
although  Hebrew  antithesis,  which  abhorred  literary 
and  moral  shading,  might  lead  us  to  fancy  so.  Difi"er- 
ent  levels  of  prophecy  meet  us  in  the  Old  Testament  at 
every  turn.  The  narrow  view  had  its  place  and  func- 
tion. It  was  the  Sadducee  that  in  the  brave  Maccabeari_ 
struggles  saved  the  future  for  Christianity.  We  owe  to 
tHe  Pharisees  and  their  legal  tradition  our  text  of  the 
Prophets  as  well  as  the  Pentateuch.  But  they  would 
not  enter  with  Jesus  into  its  diviner  meanings ;  and 
so  Talmudic  Israel  sprang  from  this  national  patriotic 
school,  which  when  compared  with  polytheism  had  ex- 
cellent virtues,  but  which,  in  casting  away  the  Christian 
light  and  grace,  became  a  false  prophet.^ 

From  Ecstasy  to  Spiritual  Insicfht. — To  be  ecstatic, 
then,  was  not  always  to  be  orthodox ;  and  orthodoxy 

1  £.  Bi.,  "  Proph.  Lit.,"  sec.  24. 


206  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

itself,  where  it  refused  the  larger  vision,  shrivelled  up 
into  the  righteousness  of  Scribes  and  Pharisees.  Holy 
Scripture  could  not  bear  the  immoral  soothsayer  from 
the  beginning.  It  allows  the  name  of  prophet  to  Zede- 
kiah  in  Book  of  Kings  ;  and  even  to  Hananiah  who  stood 
forth  against  Jeremiah  and  was  by  him  condemned  to 
die  within  the  year  (Jer.  xxviii.  i6).  Men  like  these 
were  seers  by  profession,  with  certain  qualities  which 
entitled  them  to  play  the  part ;  but  a  deeper  and  more 
spiritual  revelation  superseded  them.  As  a  movement, 
prophecy  goes  from  trance  to  intuition  ;  it  is  ever  tend- 
ing to  strip  itself  of  outward  accidents  ;  it  uses  parables 
instead  of  acted  symbolism  as  time  proceeds ;  it  com- 
mits the  word  to  writing  and  almost  anticipates  the 
didactic  methods  of  St.  Paul.  It  is  the  same  Spirit  that 
guides  from  first  to  last ;  nor  is  any  single  process  given 
up  ;  nay,  all  may  be  combined  in  one  teacher.  For  St. 
John  originates  the  Apocalypse  in  a  series  of  visions, 
but  the  Fourth  Gospel  reasons.  However,  as  our  Lord's 
example  proves,  the  supreme  wisdom  is  calm,  conscious 
of  itself,  in  no  sense  abnormal.  The  word  uttered  by 
Him  appears  equal  to  the  message,  without  violence, 
allegorical  shows,  frenzy,  or  any  of  the  devices — not 
even  the  music  of  Elisha — which  were  once  required, 
"  Behold,  the  Lord  passed  by,  and  a  great  and  strong 
wind  rent  the  mountains  and  brake  in  pieces  the  rocks 
.  .  .  but  the  Lord  was  not  in  the  wind ;  and  after  the 
wind  an  earthquake ;  but  the  Lord  was  not  in  the  earth- 
quake ;  and  after  the  earthquake  a  fire ;  but  the  Lord 
was  not  in  the  fire ;  and  after  the  fire  a  still  small  voice  " 
(i  Kings  xix.  ii).  Remark  how  all  the  customary 
tokens  of  the  Spirit  are  held  out  only  to  be  put  on 
one  side,  in  this  overpowering  manifestation  of  Jahweh. 
The  portents  vanish,  the  still  small  voice  has  more  terror 
in  it  than  wind,  earthquake  or  fire.  So  is  that  record 
we  name  the  Bible  a  permanent  revelation  which  all  the 
peoples  in  their  turn  shall  hear  of  and  by  its  judgments 
be  doomed  or  saved.     The  inspiration  of  Prophets  and 


WRITTEN  PROPHECY  207 

Apostles  bi-iiit^.s  forth  antl  bequeaths  to  us  this  one 
volume.  Note  also  that  Zechariah  forebodes  the  very 
extinction  of  j^rophecy  as  a  thing  become  unclean,  per- 
verted to  heathen  uses  (xiii.  2-5).  Its  ecstatic  nature 
demanded  control.  And  so  it  perished  from  Judah. 
Kven  in  Christian  ages,  it  has  taken  all  the  authority  of 
Church  rulers  to  prevent  the  excess  into  which  enthusi- 
asm too  speedily  plunges  ;  while,  outside  the  Catholic 
range,  visionaries  either  distort  revealed  doctrine  or  arc 
tempted  into  antinomian  courses.^ 

Prophecy  Tends  to  become  Literature. — Two  con- 
clusions may  be  drawn  from  the  preceding.  Prophecy 
has  kinds  and  degrees,  but  need  not  imply  agitation 
of  the  human  subject  or  frenzy ;  and  it  tends  towards 
a  permanent  record  of  its  message  in  writing.  The 
man  is  first  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit ;  a  portion  of 
his  charge  it  sometimes  is  to  set  down  for  future  re- 
membrance the  things  he  has  uttered.  No  small  jjart 
of  the  I3ible  is  due  to  the  Prophets  themselves,  who 
first  preached  and  then  wrote  their  preaching.  But 
besides  these  we  have  another  class  to  keep  in  view, 
the  recorders  who  were  not  prophets.  And  it  deserves 
observation  that  a  large  part  of  the  difficulties  raised 
by  modern  critics  bear  on  this  class, — the  chroniclers 
and  historians  in  Scripture.  No  one  maintains  that  in 
Joshua,  Judges,  Kings,  Paralipomena,  there  is  revela- 
tion strictly  so  termed,  i.e.,  a  disclosure  of  supernatural 
secrets  or  divine  counsels.  Yet  they  are  a  necessary 
framework.  Coming  to  the  New  Testament,  St.  Mark 
or  St.  Luke  has  no  message  of  his  own  ;  their  task  is 
compilation  from  sources  oral  and  written.  But,  as  we 
said  on  occasion  of  it,  2  Maccabees  declares  itself  not 
to  be  an  original  in  any  sense ;  it  is  the  inspired  com- 
pendium of  a  book  which  was  probably  not  inspired. 

Inspiration  not  always  Revelation. — Clearly  then, 
Revelation  is  one  thing,  the  impulse  to  write  a  book  of 

J  Striking  but  heterodox  view  in  Spinoza,  Tract.  Thcol.-PoHt.,  ii. 


2o8  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Scripture  is  something  else,  distinct  and  independent 
of  it ;  the  inspired  writer  need  not  be  a  prophet.  For 
by  Revelation,  as  our  theologians  determine  it,  is  meant 
the  divine  gift  of  new  ideas,  '■'■  species  sensibiles  atit  in- 
tellectuales]'  which  make  known  things  hitherto  dark, 
mysteries  of  Heaven  or  facts  and  truths  of  earth  not 
before  in  the  prophet's  possession.  But  to  be  inspired 
for  writing  is  to  have  one's  knowledge  so  governed  and 
one's  powers  so  moved  that  the  result  shall  be  a  docu- 
ment free  from  approved  error,  conveying  that  infor- 
mation (and  neither  more  nor  less)  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  willed  to  have  put  on  record.  He  gives  therefore 
light,  guidance  and  control.  The  chief  purpose  is  not 
to  teach  but  to  preserve  revealed  truth,  of  course  in  such 
a  way  that  we  can  apprehend,  so  far  as  necessary,  the 
circumstances,  historical  and  ethical,  under  which  the 
deposit  of  faith  has  been  left  to  us.  New  matter  belongs, 
in  some  sort,  to  the  essence  of  Revelation  ;  it  is  not  a 
condition  without  which  inspiration  ceases  to  exist.^ 

The  Bible  and  other  "  Sacred  Books  ".—The  Bible 
is,  accordingly,  a  transcript,  watched  over  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  of  God's  oracles  to  Israel  and  the  Church,  to- 
gether with  a  sketch  of  their  history.  We  bear  in  mind 
that  Providence  never  left  itself  without  witness  among 
the  nations ;  and  if  Clement  of  Alexandria  ventures  a 
little  boldly  to  talk  of  the  Dispensation  of  Gentilism,- 
or  others  have  seen  analogies  of  our  sacred  books  in 
the  vast  Oriental  literatures, — the  Vedas,  Zend  Avesta, 
Babylonian  Psalms  and  Epics, — or  among  the  elder 
Greeks,  one  observation  meets  this  view.  As  Christi- 
anity is  supreme  and  unique  among  religions,  so  is  the 
Bible  far  beyond  other  writings,  however  grave  or  lofty, 
in  its  total  effect.  Scholars  who  are  capable  of  judging 
will  not  appeal  from  this  conclusion  which  is,  indeed, 
generally  admitted.     "  Eastern  literatures,"  said  Renan, 

^  Lagrange,  Hist.  Crit.,  89-101 ;  c/.  St.  Thomas,  Dc  Veritate,  xii., 
art.  7  ;  Franzelin,  ut  supra,  298. 

-Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.,  \\.  8;  sect.  67;  vii.  2;  Newman,  Arians,  81. 


JEWS  ON  INSPIRATION  209 

"  as  a  rule  can  be  appreciated  only  by  experts  ;  Hebrew 
literature  is  the  Bible,  '  the  Book,'  or  the  universal  read- 
ing ;  millions  are  acquainted  with  no  other  poetry. 
Proportion,  measure,  taste,  were  the  exclusive  privilege 
of  the  Hebrew  among  Orientals.  Israel  had,  like 
Greece,  the  gift  of  liberating  and  expressing  its  thought 
in  a  mould  at  once  limited  and  perfect ;  thus  it  gave  to 
its  ideas  and  feelings  a  universal  form,  acceptable  to 
the  human  race." 

Jewish  Ideas  of  Inspiration. — Efforts  to  prove  the 
inspiration  of  whole  books  from  the  Bible  itself  arc 
embarrassed  by  the  circumstance  that  it  was  taken  for 
granted  and  no  Israelite  would  have  called  it  in  question. 
Passages  are  cited  from  the  Pentateuch,  Joshua,  Isa., 
Jen,  Ezek.,  Dan,,  2  Mace,  which  have  reference  to 
special  portions,  or  mention  "  the  Books  "  ;  and  in  the 
New  Testament  "  David  saith  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  or 
the  verses  we  have  quoted  from  2  Tim,  and  2  Peter. 
The  New  Testament  ever  recognises  as  a  final  authority 
the  words  of  Holy  Scripture.  But  "  none  of  the  sacred 
writers  professes  at  any  time  to  be  distinctly  conscious 
of  his  own  inspiration  ".  We  learn  the  Jewish  doctrine 
from  Philo  and  Josephus,  Philo  sets  Moses  above  all 
other  writers,  says  that  the  words  of  the  Old  Testament 
are  God-inspired,  has  a  Platonising  theory  on  the  sub- 
ject, makes  the  prophet  a  passive  instrument  and  his 
condition  ecstasy.  Josephus  in  like  manner,  "  They 
alone  ave  prophets  who  have  written  ...  as  they 
learned  of  God  by  inspiration,"  hence  the  twenty-two 
books  are  divine.' 

The  post-Christian  Jewish  teaching  went  to  extrava- 
gant lengths :  every  syllable  was  dictated  by  the  Al- 
mighty ;  Moses  wrote  in  the  land  of  Moab,  under 
revelation,  the  account  of  his  own  death  ;  all  the  sacred 
books  were  taboo  and  "  defiled  the  hands"  of  those  who 


'  Gigot,  Gen.  Introd.,  474, 478 ;  on  Philo,  vide  Zeller,  Phil,  of  Greeks, 
iii.,  pt.  2,  346. 

14 


2IO  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

touched  them.  Christian  writers  inherited  the  tradition 
which  Philo,  Josephus,  and  the  Talmud  have  expressed. 
Literal  inspiration,  covering  every  sentence,  nay,  every 
word  of  the  Old  Testament  was  held  ;  in  due  time  it 
comprehended  the  Gospels  and  Apostolic  writings.  It 
is  observed  that  Irenreus  did  not  come  under  the 
Philonic  influence.  Not  a  single  Father  dreamt  of  call- 
ing in  question  the  fact  that  Holy  Scripture  is  inspired. 
But  discussions  arose  concerning  the  manner  and  ex- 
tent of  the  divine  afflatus,  which,  after  sixteen  hundred 
years,  if  we  reckon  from  Origen,  are  not  yet  decided. 
They  reflect  the  complex  nature  of  tradition  on  this 
subject,  and  perhaps,  considering  how  temperaments 
vary,  are  insoluble  outside  certain  limits.  We  have,  in 
this  chapter,  dwelt  on  the  divine  element  which  form- 
ally constitutes  Holy  Writ.  Now  we  must  glance  at 
the  human  instruments  by  means  of  which  it  is  brought 
into  being,^ 

Church  Definitions — We  do  so,  keeping  always  in 
view  the  Vatican  declaration ;  "which  books  of  Old  and 
New  Testament,  entire  with  all  their  parts  as  recited 
in  the  decree  of  Trent,  are  to  be  held  as  sacred  and 
canonical.  But  the  Church  holds  them  to  be  such,  not 
because,  having  been  composed  by  human  diligence, 
they  were  afterwards  approved  by  her  authority ;  nor 
yet  only  because  they  contain  revelation  without  error  ; 
but  inasmuch  as,  having  been  written  by  inspiration  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  they  have  God  for  their  author,  and 
as  such  have  been  handed  down  to  the  Church  itself" 
(Sess.  3,  "  Dei  Filius,"  2). 

Or,  as  the  Nicene  Creed  aflirms,  we  believe  in  "  the 
Holy  Ghost,  the  Lord  and  Lifegiver,  who  proceedeth 
from  the  Father  and  the  Son  ;  who  together  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son  is  adored  and  glorified  ;  who  spake 
by  the  Prophets  ", 

And  again,  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (i.  i), 

^SJiab.,  104  a;  Baba  Bathra,  14-15  ;  Jadaim,  3-5. 


ANTECEDENT  TO   WRITING  211 

we  recognise  in  the  course  of  history  that  "  God  who 
at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners  spake  in  times 
past  to  the  fathers  b)'  the  Proj^hcts,  hath,  last  of  all,  in 
these  days  spoken  to  us  by  His  Son  ". 

Finally,  with  Baruch  (iv.  i),  "This  is  the  book  of  the 
commandments  of  God,  and  the  law  that  endureth  for 
ever  ". 


14* 


CHAPTER  XI. 


THE  HUMAN  INSTRUMENT. 


Spirit  and  Word  of  God.— Theology  was  Greek  long 
ere  it  put  on  a  Latin  vesture ;  and  to  Greek  minds 
sucli  as  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  the  "  adamantine  " 
Origen  we  are  indebted  for  those  early  "  connections 
of  science  with  revealed  Religion  "  that  bind  together 
the  divine  and  the  human.  "  Dispensing  in  former 
times,"  says  Clement  of  the  Word  of  God,  "  to  some 
His  precepts,  to  others  philosophy,  now  at  length  by 
His  own  coming  He  has  closed  the  course  of  unbelief 
.  .  .  Greek  and  Barbarian  (or  Jew)  being  led  forward  by 
a  separate  process  to  that  perfection  which  is  through 
faith."  ^  We  are  not,  then,  to  imagine  a  world  of  Nature 
shut  off  and  remote  from  the  world  of  Grace  ;  all  men 
have  fallen,  and  all  have  been  redeemed.  Every 
kind  of  human  activity  save  sin  is  a  fruit  or  outcome 
of  the  Father's  power,  through  the  Son's  wisdom, 
in  the  love  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Without  the  Word 
of  God  "was  not  anything  made,"  but  "that  which 
came  to  be,  in  Him  was  life,  and  the  life  was  the 
light  of  men  ".  He  is  the  Demiurge,  the  Logos  whjo 
in  all  creatures  is  the  seed  of  their  existence  from  on 
high  ;  being  especially  in  Adam's  race  their  supreme 
Reason,  creative  as  an  artist  intent  on  working  out  a 
plan.  Upon  this  errand  the  Son  goes  forth  or  comes 
"down,  step  after  step,  age  after  age,  by  manifestations 
that  announce  or  prepare  His  last  and  deepest  con- 


^  Strom.,  vii.  2. 
(212J 


WORD  AND  SPIRIT  213 

desccnsion.  In  Greek  this  whole  scries  of  acts  is 
termed  tlie  Syucatdbasis  of  the  Son,  and  it  is  perfected 
by  the  Spirit.  We  have  met  the  Hebrew  name  already, 
Riiach  Ehhitu,  which  sums  up  all  divine  energies  in 
relation  to  creatures.  We  do  not  find  in  the  Old 
Testament  a  literal  equivalent  for  "Logos";  but  in_ 
Proverbs  viii.  the  Wisdom  of  God  {Chochiua/i)  appears 
as  exercising  those  gracious  functions  which  St.  John 
attributes  to  tlie  Word,  and  which  in  Gen.  i.  are  ful- 
filled when  God  speaks  His  "  Fiat". 

Economies  of  Divine  Light. — "  Accordingly,"  says 
Newman,  following  the  Alexandrians,  "  there  is  nothing 
unreasonable  in  the  notion,  that  there  may  have  been 
heathen  poets  and  sages,  or  Sibyls  again,  in  a  certain 
extent  divinely  illuminated,  and  organs  through  whom 
religious  and  moral  truth  was  conveyed  to  their 
countrymen  ;  though  their  knowledge  of  the  Power 
from  whom  the  gift  came,  nay,  and  their  perception 
of  the  gift  as  existing  in  themselves,  may  have  been 
very  faint  or  defective."  ^ 

"~Tlie  points  here  insisted  upon  are  (i)  that  "every 
good  gift  and  every  perfect  gift  is  from  above,  coming 
down  from  the  Father  of  lights"  (James  i.  17),  and  (2) 
that  degrees  of  illumination,  varying  with  individuals  as 
with  peoples,  cast  no  slur  on  the  Divine  act  itself, 
which  on  God's  side  is  always  of  necessity  without  the 
imperfection  that  clings  to  creatures.  This  conception 
is  assailed  by  unbelievers  on  the  ground  that  it  evades 
difficulties  by  laying  them  to  the  charge  of  men ;  but 
if  we  affirm  that  there  is  a  God  at  all,  not  limited  by 
that  which  He  calls  into  being,  the  distinction  must 
hold  good.  In  some  form  or  other  every  system, 
while  exhibiting  the  gradations  and  opposite  strivings 
of  force-s,  personalities,  ideas,  volitions,  traces  the  power 
by  which  they  move  to  a  source  beyond  them.  So  is 
it  with  grace,  and  in  particular  with  inspiration.     We 

'^  Arians,  84;  Theophil.  Antioch.,  Ad  AuloL,  ii.  9;  Justin,  i  Apol., 
XX.  xliv. 


214  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

may  say  of  it,  as  the  Alexandrians  of  Revelation  at 
large,  that  it  is  "  a  universal,  not  a  local  gift,"  adding, 
of  course,  that  Israel  and  Christianity  were  granted 
"  authoritative  documents  of  truth ;  appointed  channels 
of  communication  "  with  God. 

This  Doctrine  is  Catholic. — Be  it  remembered  that 
this  view  was  not  invented  yesterday,  to  meet  Baby- 
lonian discoveries,  but  came  up  as  soon  as  Apostles 
(St.  Paul  before  the  Areopagus),  and  catechists  (Theonas 
Alex,),  or  defenders  of  the  faith  (Origen),  found  them- 
selves in  presence  of  a  Greek  wisdom  that  somehow 
contained  "  the  rudiments  of  that  really  perfect  know- 
ledge which  is  beyond  this  world  ".  Hebrew  inspiration 
was  a  thing  apart ;  nevertheless,  not  simply  foreign  or 
repugnant  to  our  intellectual  nature.  The  Divine 
influence  has  made  itself  known  through  veils  and 
enigmas.  Scripture  almost  everywhere  speaking  an 
"  oracular  language " ;  on  the  other  hand  Pythagoras 
and  Plato  were  called  "  thieves  of  Moses,"  not  grateful 
for  that  which  they  appropriated.  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria describes  ecstasy  as  a  token  of  false  prophets. 
Origen  will  have  it  that  the  priestess  of  Delphi  was 
subject  to  demonic  power.  The  School  of  Alexandria 
recognised  in  every  jot  and  tittle  of  Scripture  the  in- 
spired quality ;  and  Origei  i,  who  struck  out  his  own 
line  of  exposition,  defends  the  New  Testament  writers 
from  having  in  any  way  erred. 

Method  of  Allegory. — But  Origen  speaks  emphatic- 
ally on  the  discrepancies  or  seeming  contradictions 
which  his  reading  of  the  Bible  furnished,  and  to  escape 
from  them  he  had  recourse  to  an  allegorical  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Sacred  Books.  Iren?eus,  in  the  previous 
age,  had  maintained  that  "  the  Scriptures  are  perfect, 
since  they  were  spoken  by  the  Word  of  God  and 
His  Spirit," — which  is  the  traditional  Greek  manner  of 
declaring  inspiration — but  he  remarked  the  human 
peculiarities  in  St.  Paul,  etc.  To  allegorise  was  not  his 
method.     From  Origen  the  Western  Fathers,  Hilary, 


ORIGEN'S  THEORIES  215 

Ambrose,  and  Augustine  derived  their  subordination 
of  the  literal  to  the  spiritual  sense  which,  especially  as 
regards  the  Old  Testament,  was  used  to  clear  up  the 
obscure  or  to  get  rid  of  the  apparently  disedifying  pas- 
sages,— an  instrument  not  of  critics  but  of  theologians. 
Thus  it  was  that  Augustine  heard  from  Ambrose  at 
Milan,  "the  enigma  solved  of  the  ancient  Scriptures," 
which  "  when  he  took  them  to  the  letter  had  been  the 
destruction  of  his  spirit ".  For  Ambrose  opened  the 
sense  of  things  which  "  seemed  to  teach  perversely"  by 
removing  their  mystic  veil  ;  and  Augustine  was  brought 
to  distinguish  between  the  sublime  meaning  and  the 
"  humble  manner  "  of  speech.  In  these  words,  not  only 
are  the  verbal  difficulties  of  the  Bible  admitted,  but  its 
moral  problems ;  the  element  we  call  human  is  not 
denied  to  be  there,  but  it  is  justified  by  the  hidden  scope 
and  onward  movement ;  "  the  end  of  the  Law  is  Christ".^ 
Obiter  Dicta? — Origen  had  thrown  out  another 
hint ;  there  were  certainly  degrees  of  inspiration  ; 
moreover,  on  many  passages  of  Holy  Writ  the  divine 
influence  need  not  have  been  immediate.  A  doctrine 
of  intermittent  light  has  never  found  approval  from 
supreme  authority ;  but  now  and  again  some  Eastern 
Father  who  did  not  welcome  the  allegorical  method 
would  glance  towards  it,  while  upholding  the  Church's 
true  formulas.  Even  St.  Ambrose  ventures  to  say 
"  the  things  written  in  consideration  of  human  weak- 
ness, were  not  written  of  God  ".  St.  Chrysostom  allows 
minor  discrepancies  in  the  Gospels ;  Theodoret  is 
willing  to  sacrifice  the  letter  at  times ;  the  two  Cyrils 
offer  traces  of  Origen  ;  Basil  goes  so  far  as  to  describe 
the  sacred  writers,  "  who  sometimes  speak  of  themselves, 
sometimes  express  that  with  which  God  inspires  them  ". 
This  view  has  been  aptly  termed  a  "  dichotomy,"  or 
separation  of  Scripture  into  parts,  human  or  divine  as 

*  Clem.  Al.,  Exhort.,  ix. ;  Strom.,  v.  6 ;  Orig.,  in  Luc,  x\'ii. ;  Contra 
Celstim,  iv.  48 ;  vii.  4 ;  Philocal.,  i.  17  ;  in  Joan,,  x. ;  Iren.,  ii.  2b  ;  iii.  7 ; 
Aug.,  Conf.,v.  14;  vi.  4,  5. 


2l6  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

it  may  happen.  No  attempt  was  ever  made  to  carry 
it  out  in  detail.  The  obiter  dicta  quoted  just  now 
from  Orientals  do  not  represent  the  force  of  tradition  ; 
they  are  too  scattered,  too  transient,  nor  can  any  stable 
theory  be  founded  on  them.^ 

Schools  of  Exegesis. — Antioch,  which  in  the  earh'est 
days  of  Christianity  welcomed  Barnabas  and  Saul,  men 
who  interpreted  the  letter  by  the  spirit,  was  opposed  to 
Origen,  did  not  love  allegories,  and  became  a  school  of 
grammatical  exegesis.  "Judaism,  being  carnal  in  its 
views,"  we  are  told  by  Newman,  "  was  essentially  literal 
in  its  interpretations  " ;  now  Antioch,  the  birthplace  of 
Arian  disputes,  from  which  Lucian,  Paulus,  and  Theo- 
dore of  Mopsuestia,  the  great  Nestorian  commentator, 
proceeded,  bore  some  affinity  with  a  like  temper,  and 
the  train  of  heresies  combated  by  Church  Councils  from 
272  until  431  (Antioch-Ephesus)  all  move  in  the  same 
direction.  They  are  efforts  to  put  reason  in  the  place 
of  faith.  It  was  by  the  letter  that  Arians  professed  to 
go  in  denying  our  Lord's  prerogatives.  St.  Athanasius, 
and  all  his  followers,  uphold  a  spiritual  sense  of  Scrip- 
ture which  had  been  gradually  revealed.  Theodore 
limited  the  meaning  of  inspiration  by  the  mind  of  its 
organ ;  he  could  not  tolerate  a  deeper  than  man's  in- 
tention. So  prophecy  to  him  became  ethics  ;  Messianic 
passages  were  understood  exclusively  of  their  immediate 
objects ;  the  words  of  the  Bible  did  not  proceed  from 
God.  Canticles,  Job,  Chron.,  Ezra,  were  cast  aside,  as 
in  their  obvious  character  not  divine.  To  such  an 
excess  did  the  merely  critical  handling  of  Scripture 
lead  these  Antiochenes.  The  Saints  were,  indeed,  pre- 
served from  it ;  but  a  most  remarkable  anticipation  of 
extreme  Protestant  {i.e.  Liberal)  views  may  be  studied 
in  Theodore  and  his  heretical  companions  or  successors.^ 

'  Orig.,  Praf,  in  Joan.,  5;  Ambrose,  in  hue.,  viii.  7;  Chrysost.,  in 
Matt.,  i.  2  ;  Basil,  Adv.  Etuium.,  v.  3. 

^  Newman,  Development,  285-91 ;  but  see  Comely,  Introd.  Gen., 
6ii ;  and  Farrar,  The  Bible,  71 ;  Hist,  of  Interp.,  passim. 


55.  JEROME  AND  AUGUSTINE  217 

Phases  of  St.  Jerome. — St  Jerome's  relation  to  tlic 
friends  of  Oriijjcn  was  peculiar  and  tragical,  as  is  well 
known.  He  borrowed  from  that  side  his  belief  in 
"every  sentence,  syllable,  jot,  and  tittle  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture as  full  of  meanings,  and  heavenly  sacraments,"  i.e. 
m)-steries.  But,  in  later  days,  acquaintance  with  He- 
brew and  the  school  of  Antioch  modified  his  language. 
"  Let  my  detractors  understand,"  he  cries,  "  that  not 
the  words  but  the  sense  of  Scripture  ought  to  be  con- 
sidered." He  marked  the  differences  in  style  which 
characterise  the  prophets, — not  always  happily.  He 
said  that  St,  Paul  "  could  not  expound  the  majesty  of 
divine  ideas  in  a  speech  worthy  of  Greek  eloquence". 
His  words  touching  history  in  the  Bible  have  been  often 
recited,  "  many  things  are  said  in  Scripture  agreeably 
to  the  opinion  of  the  time  to  which  the  events  belong, 
and  not  as  the  truth  of  the  matter  contained  it ",  We 
have  seen  that  he  gives  up  the  chronolog>'  of  Kings 
and  Chronicles,  He  seems  to  allow  that  the  inspired 
writers  did  not  always  remember  exactly  what  they 
were  quoting  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  so  the 
words  vary  in  Apostolic  writings.  Athenagoras  had 
spoken  of  the  Prophets  whom  the  Spirit  used  for  His 
instruments,  "  as  a  fluteplayer  breathes  into  a  flute ". 
There  was  another  way  of  looking  at  the  phenomena, 
which  revealed  the  human  agents  as  not  simply  pas- 
sive but  individuals  with  a  genius  of  their  own  ;  upon 
this  aspect  critical  scholars  like  St.  Jerome  could  not 
choose  but  dwell,^ 

St.   Augustine  and    St.    Thomas St.    Augustine 

was  not  critical,  and  his  trust  in  allegory  enabled  him 
to  expound  with  almost  equal  force  both  terms  of  what 
may  be  thought  our  antinomy  as  regards  inspiration. 
If  the  Bible  was  "God's  handwriting,"  that  one  of  its 
authors  should  lapse  into  error  was  not  conceivable. 


^  Ad  Pnminacli,  6;  in  ha.  Jcran.  Prirf.;  Ad  Hcdib. ;  in  Jcrcm.^ 
v.;  Ad  Vital.,  etc.     Comely,  i.  633. 


2l8  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Yet  they  wrote  not  as  machines  but  as  men.  Real  dis- 
crepancies he  cannot  grant.  Divergent  points  of  view, 
tendencies  which  lead  to  special  handling ;  imperfect 
representations  of  the  ineffable  ;  these  are  grounds  by 
means  of  which  to  secure  the  "  consent  of  the  Gospels  ". 
He  feels  that  "not  even  John  spoke  as  the  thing  itself 
is,  but  as  he  was  able ;  for  though  himself  a  man, 
his  subject  was  God".  To  omit  others,  Augustine's 
language  meets  us  again  in  the  Angelic  Doctor.  St. 
Thomas  allowed  degrees  of  illumination,  and  ranked 
the  prophets  highest ;  he  conceded  no  error  in  the 
Sacred  Books ;  he  recognised  that  inspiration  need  not 
take  away  the  man's  natural  powers  or  throw  him  into 
ecstasy.  Abelard,  as  in  so  many  departments  of  the 
faith,  so  here  leaned  towards  Rationalism  ;  prophets 
and  apostles,  he  would  say,  had  sometimes  been  mis- 
taken. But  the  Catholic  doctrine  was  not  affected  by 
this  or  any  other  passing  aberration.  It  always  main- 
tained that  the  writer  of  an  inspired  book  could  not 
err  therein :  that  he  was  moved  to  write  by  a  divine 
impulse,  yet  in  the  exercise  of  his  will  and  intellect ; 
that  he  set  down  no  more  and  no  less  than  the  Holy 
Spirit  commanded  ;  and  that  his  writing  was  adequate 
to  the  purpose  for  which  it  had  been  evoked.  But 
since  in  aim  it  was  not  as  the  books  of  this  world, 
Holy  Scripture  did  not  teach  secular  wisdom ;  neither 
in  style  nor  contents  might  it  be  esteemed,  says  the 
Jesuit  Cornely  in  striking  words,  "a  heaven-sent  com- 
pendium of  sacred  and  profane  history".  Leo  XHI. 
in  his  P rovidentissinius  Deus,  following  St.  Augustine, 
declares  that  "  the  sacred  writers,  or  to  be  more  accur- 
ate, the  Holy  Ghost  who  spake  by  them,  did  not  intend 
to  teach  men  those  things  (such  as  the  physical  system 
of  the  universe)  which  were  in  no  degree  profitable  to 
salvation  ".  Moreover,  as  St.  Thomas  held,  they  went 
by  sensible  appearances,  used  the  customary  terms,  and 
wrote  to  be  understood  by  their  contemporaries.  "  The 
principles  here  laid  down,"  concludes  Leo,  "it  will  be 


SECOND  CAUSES  REAL  219 

well  to  apply  in  the  cognate  branches  of  knowledge, 
and  above  all  to  history."  ^ 

The  Living:  Mind. — We  have  thus  provided  for  us 
rules  which  cover  both  terms,  the  divine  and  the  human, 
in  that  concrete  reality,  the  Word  of  God  written.  Be- 
tween the  Spirit  and  the  page  a  living  mind  intervenes, 
witju.ts  furnishing  of  ideas,  its  development,  its  freedom 
under  guidance,  its  moral  qualities  or  defects,  its  apti- 
tude for  literary  expression  or  difficulty  in  finding  words 
and  phrases,  its  relation  to  times  gone  by,  its  apprehen- 
sion of  present  and  future.  Always  it  is  essentially  a 
Hebrew  mind,  even  when  it  employs  the  Greek  idiom  ; 
and  it  moves  along  a  beaten  track,  imitating  the  ancient 
prophets,  quoting,  arguing,  compiling,  not  in  accordance 
with  our  classic  authors,  not  as  the  Western  canons  of 
reason  or  research  would  demand,  but  with  an  accept- 
ance of  the  current  information,  a  grouping  of  events 
from  the  hortatory  point  of  view,  an  art  which  never 
becomes  science.  These  things  altogether  make  of  the 
Bible  for  Europeans  one  book  indeed,  apart  from  their 
native  literatures.  Its  subject-matter  is  religion,  which 
the  nations  of  the  West  have  never  been  able  to  do 
more  than  rudely  sketch  for  themselves ;  on  the  other 
hand,  Israel  could  not  achieve  so  much  as  the  outlines 
of  experimental  physics  or  reasoned  metaphysics ;  to 
seek  either  in  its  writings  is  labour  lost. 

Sons  of  Their  Time. — The  inspired  penmen  are 
children  of  their  age,  limited  by  its  horizon,  and  project 
the  unknown  by  shadows  of  that  which  they  have  seen. 
They  do  not  guess  that  there  will  be  a  modern  Europe. 
The  Apocalypse  has  no  direct  message  for  continents 
undiscovered  when  it  was  given  ;  St.  Paul  contemplates 
tiie  Roman  Empire  as  filling  all  the  years  until  Anti- 
christ shall  be  revealed.  The  Prophets  who  instruct  us 
in  social  righteousness  deal  with  Edom,  Tyre,  Egypt, 

1  Aug.,  De  Consensu  Evaiig.,  ii.  28  ;  iii.  7  ;  in  jfoan.,  i. ;  references 
to  Aquinas  in  Dausch,  Inspir.  of  Scrip.  (German),  93-97  ;  Abelard,  Sic 
et  Non,  ProL,  Migne,  P.  L.,  178,  col.  1345. 


220  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Assyria,  Babylon,  never  dreaming  of  those  new  peoples 
who  were  to  rise  up  when  the  whole  of  that  vast  world 
should  be  sepulchred  in  its  mounds  of  dust  and  sealed 
in  its  pyramids.  We  apply  their  teaching  by  a  per- 
petual transposition  ;  the  spirit  lives  on  while  the  letter 
may  often  seem  a  dead  hieroglyphic.  In  this  sense, 
too,  the  end  of  the  Law  was  Christ.  Only  a  spiritual 
meaning  survives  for  Christians  from  the  Hebrew 
Testament  as  a  whole,  though  its  human  interest  can 
never  be  exhausted.^ 

Post  "Reformation  Views.— It  was,  then,  singularly 
unfortunate  that  the  revolt  we  call  Protestantism  went 
back  to  a  "  carnal  interpretation  "  of  those  Books.     The 
reformers  sometimes  disputed  a  text  or  an  Epistle ;  but 
the  immediate  outcome  of  their  practice  was  Bibliolatry. 
The  Massoretic  recension,  with  its  modern  equivalents, 
became  "the  Word,"  as  if  uttered  from  Heaven  by  a 
God  who  in  form  and  speech  bore  the  likeness  of  man, 
literally  dictating  the  recorded   syllables.      Talmudist 
and   Protestant  agreed  in  making  the  Bible  mean  as 
much  as  it  possibly  could,  by  a  species  oi  gematria, 
"  hanging  mountains  on  a  hair,"  says  the  Arabian  pro- 
verb.    True,  there  was  something  of  this  latter  in  St. 
Augustine;  but   he  had    returns   to  a  more  balanced 
conception,  and  he  warned   the  faithful  not  to  bring 
discredit  on  Holy  Scripture  by  cleaving  to  its  "  rind  of 
text"  though  sense  and  science  were  against  if-     His 
admonition  was  echoed  in  St.  Thomas.     And  neither 
Florence  nor  Trent  exaggerated  the  scope  of  inspira- 
tion.    Trent  used  the  Bible  to  prove  Catholic  dogma, 
not  as  a  substitute  for  earthly  knowledge.     Its  decrees 
enlighten  us  concerning  grace  and  the  Sacraments;  it 
has  nothing  to  say  about  cosmography,  biolog)^  chrono- 
logy.    But  orthodox  divines  as  well  as  their  opponents 
did  very  often  tend  to  eliminate  from  their  considera- 

1  Hummelauer,  Exeg.  Inspir.,  50-56,  71,  73  ;  Comely,  Introd.  Spec, 

ii.  298,  299.  ^  „  ..  „ 

2  Aug.,  Dc  Gen.  contr.  Manich.,  ii.  2  ;  De  Consensu  Evang.,  u.  12,  2». 


BIBLE  NOT  DICTATED  221 

tion  the  human  author.  So,  among  Catholics,  a  theoty 
of  ahnost  mechanical  inspiration,  called  verbal,  found 
numerous  advocates — Salmcron,  Maldonatus,  Bannez, 
Estius  and  Suarez  are  quoted — to  whom  the  mediaeval 
sentence,  "  God  is  the  author  of  Scripture,"  appeared 
as  meaning  that  the  human  instrument  contributed 
only  his  pen  to  the  page  written  by  him.  That  such 
a  doctrine  is  weighted  with  insuperable  difficulties,  some 
of  our  preceding  chapters  have  shown. 

Inspiration   not  Mechanical. — We  must,  however, 
carefully  distinguish  between  the   moderate  forms  of 
verbal  inspiration, — all   taking  into  account    more  or 
less  what   St.  Jerome  and  other  authorities  had   laid 
down    touching    difference    of  style  or   spirit    in    our 
Books, — and  that  extreme  view,  according  to  which 
the  human   organ  was  merely  a  channel  for  Divine 
utterance.     No  Catholic  has  in  terms  denied  the  modal 
influence  of  the  Prophet  on  his  message,  not  even  St. 
Thomas,  although  he  compares  the  sacred  oracle  to 
"  the  tongue  of  a  child   speaking  words  with  which 
another  supplies  him  "}     To  do  so  would  be  parallel 
with  such  heresies  as  taught  that  Jesus  was  not  incarnate 
of  Mary,  sed  per   Virginem  transiit,  to  quote  their  ex- 
pression.    Corresponding  in  its  degree  with  our  Lord's 
assumption  of  humanity  (observe  the  qualification)  it 
may  be  said  that  the  word  of  God  takes  flesh  and  blood 
in  the  living  instruments  that  proclaim  or  set  it  down 
for  our  remembrance.    But  the  method  of  dictation  fails 
to  realise  that  the  creature  is  still  himself  though  docile 
to  an  impulse  from   Heaven.      It  breaks  down  when 
confronted  with  natural  peculiarities  of  language,  with 
variations  in  the  same  story  told  by  different  pens, 
with  neglect  of  literal  accuracy  in  quotation  from  the 
Old  Testament  by  writers  of  the  New ;  with  genuine 
yet  not  identical   readings  of  the   Pater  noster  and 
the  very  words  of  Eucharistic   institution;   with   ac- 
knowledgments of  pains  taken,  sources  consulted,  and 

'  Prol.  in  Psalmos. 


222  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

apologies  for  imperfect  success  in  rendering  the  original, 
which  meet  us  in  St,  Luke  and  2  Maccabees. 

When  St.  Paul  writes  to  the  Corinthians  (2,  xi,  6) 
"Though  I  be  rude  in  speech  yet  not  in  knowledge," 
can  we  suppose  that  he  is  pleading  for  indulgence,  as 
if  the  Holy  Spirit  had  been  at  the  bar  of  judgment  ? 
Moreover,  an  exactitude  in  syllables,  to  be  lost  by  heed- 
less transcription,  not  to  be  preserved  in  the  hundred 
tongues  which  have  made  the  Bible  their  own,  would 
have  served  no  end,  since  in  lapse  of  not  many  years 
it  must  have  become  obsolete.  Providence  has  not 
guarded  the  sacred  text  from  such  variations  as  befall 
other  books,  in  readings,  grammar,  punctuation,  and 
even  printers'  errata.  Examples  are  very  significant. 
Can  we  be  sure  of  the  pointing  in  Romans  ix.  5  ?  Did 
St.  Paul  write  "  God  manifested  in  the  flesh,"  r  Tim. 
iii.  16?  Or  St.  John  "the  only-begotten  God"  in  his 
Gospel,  i.  18  ?  Which  is  the  true  reading  of  Ps.  cix.  4  ? 
And  is  I  Jn.  v.  7  an  interpolation  ?  These  are  all  dog- 
matic passages,  disputed  not  on  a  priori  grounds,  but 
after  inspection  of  MSS.  and  versions.  Their  uncer- 
tainty is  fatal  to  a  stereotyped  pattern  of  Scripture, 
and  clearly  we  do  not  possess  one.  Let  us  allow,  in 
consequence,  that  "  the  grandeur  and  extent  of  religious 
truth  (in  the  Bible)  is  not  of  a  nature  to  be  affected 
by  verbal  changes  such  as  can  be  made  by  time,  or 
accident,  or  without  treacherous  design  "}  But  if  no 
permanent  service  was  to  be  wrought  by  an  inspiration 
extending  to  uniformity, — nay,  if  strictly  speaking,  no 
such  uniformity  existed  in  parallel  narratives, — why  lay 
stress  upon  it  ?  Nature  does  nothing  in  vain  ;  Grace 
will  not  have  been  given  to  be  straightway  lost  beyond 
recovery. 

Mechanical  inspiration  is,  therefore,  a  dream,  having 
no  basis  in  the  structure  of  our  sacred  books,  and  con- 
tradicted by  their  history. 

^  De  Quincey,  Worhs,  viii.  264,  an  essay  suggestive  throughout, 
if  read  cum  grano. 


THE  SENSE  INSPIRED  223 

Sense  not  Words  Directly  Inspired.— It  is  usual  to 
purin  Tts  place  another  system  which  we  owe  to 
divines  chiefly  of  the  Jesuit  school,  who  teach  that 
the  sense  of  Scripture  (res  et  sentetitias)  is  inspired 
directly,  but  that  its  expression,  though  secured  from 
error,  is  left  to  the  writer's  idiosyncrasies,  A  good 
working  hypothesis,  until  the  deeper  questions  of  criti- 
cism were  started.  To  the  Louvain  professors,  Lessius 
and  du  Hamel,  in  1585,  were  attributed  the  three  cele- 
brated propositions  :  that  (i)  for  a  writing  to  be  part  of 
Scripture  Tls  words  need  not  each  and  all  be  inspired 
by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  (2)  nor  yet  need  the  truths  and 
statements  in  it  {veritates  et  seiitentice)  be  immediately' 
revealed  ;  (3)  and  a  book,  such  perhaps  as  2  Mace, 
written  by  mere  human  effort  without  "  assistance " 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  might  be  made  Scripture  by  the 
divine  witness  that  it  contained  no  falsehood.  The 
University  of  Louvain  condemned  these  propositions. 
Rome  did  not  stir.  As  regards  the  third,  we  know 
it  to  be  incompatible  with  what  is  affirmed  in  the 
Vatican  decrees  ("  Dei  Filius,"  cap.  2).  The  first  and 
second  were  adopted  seemingly  by  Bellarmine  who 
is  quoted  for  and  against, — also  by  Mariana,  Bonfrere, 
Cornelius  a  Lapide,  all  of  the  Society  of  Jesus ;  and 
by  R.  Simon,  Calmet,  Haneberg,  as  indeed  by  most 
modern  theologians  until  a  recent  date.  Cardinal 
Franzelin,  whom  the  present  writer  venerates  as  his 
master  in  Rome,  asserted  them  vigorously,  though  his 
views  of  dogmatic  texts  in  the  Vulgate  brought  him 
close  to  the  more  literal  school.  None  of  the  divines 
above  mentioned  would  have  denied  the  inerrancy  of 
Scripture.  Hence  their  differences  do  not  amount  to 
much  more  than  academic  theorising.  But  they  would 
equally  have  maintained  that  Scripture  is  inerrant  as_ 
Scripture,  {sub  hac  fonnali  ratione,  to  borrow  Franze- 
lin's  favourite  expression),  not  as  if  a  work  of  profane 
learning  or  a  scientific  treatise.^ 

1  Man.  BibL,  i,  46-60;  Gigot,  Gen.  Introd.,  505  seq. 


224  'THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

This  comes  out  clearly  in  Bellarmine's  correspond- 
ence regarding  Galileo,  where  the  current  interpretation, 
though  upheld,  is  seen  to  be  provisional, — an  admission 
which  never  could  be  dreamt  of,  had  science  or  his- 
tory in  Scripture  per  se  acquired  the  force  of  revealed 
truth.^  Verbal  inspiration  was  now  commonly  rejected, 
as  Cardinal  Mazzella  relates.  The  hint  of  a  dichotomy 
thrown  out  by  Origen  was  taken  up,  and  a  certain 
human  imperfection  admitted  in  the  language,  no  less 
than  a  development  in  the  ideas  of  the  Old  Testament ; 
but  no  error  was  granted  by  way  of  meeting  objec- 
tions. A  "  limited "  influence  this  has  been  termed  ; 
but  the  Schools  accept  it  as  satisfying  the  definitions, 
viz.,  "  God  the  author  of  Scripture,"  inspiration  "  ante- 
cedent," and  the  Bible  to  be  recognised  as  the  "  Word 
of  God  written  ".  It  is  the  ordinary  view,  free  from  cen- 
sure, in  no  degree  condemned  by  the  Vatican  Council 
or  by  Leo  XIII.  in  his  Providentissiimis  Deus.  What 
the  Holy  See  would  never  tolerate  is  a  doctrine  of 
"  partial "  inspiration,  turning  Scripture  into  patchwork 
and  leaving  the  discernment  between  divine  and  human 
to  private  judgment. 

"Plenary"  Inspiration. — Since  the  phrase  "verbal 
inspiration "  is  ambiguous, — for  it  tends  to  signify 
mechanical  dictation, — it  had  better  be  laid  aside. 
"  Plenary "  expresses  all  that  its  latter-day  advocates 
would  insist  upon.  Their  position  is  set  in  a  brilliant 
light  by  Lagrange,  Loisy,  and  Ford.  All  Scripture 
and  every  word  of  it  comes  to  us  from  the  Holy 
Spirit,  but  through  the  created  medium  of  the  writer 
in  his  book.  "  To  say,"  observes  M.  Loisy,  "  that  God 
is  the  author  of  the  ideas  but  man  of  their  language ; 
that  God  made  the  substance  and  man  made  the  form  ; 
that  God  is  the  author  in  dogmatic  and  moral  passages, 
while  man  is  responsible  for  the  histor}'  or  the  obiter 
dicta,  would  be  to  practise  vivisection."     And  again, 

1  Bellarm.  to  Foscarini,  April  12,  1615. 


PLENARY  INSPIRATION  225 

"  The  compositi(  )n  of  the  sacred  vokime  was  a  super- 
natural work  inllucnced  throucjhout  by  the  glivine  con- 
currence, so  that  nothing  in  it  is  of  God  apart  from 
man,  nothing  of  man  apart  from  God".     Thus  all  its  .      a*' 

elements  are  subject  to  inspiration,  but  all  are  likewise  (■  V    " 

human.  It  is  a  "g^reat  Sacrament,"  where  the  inward  c^  -> 
grace  penetfafes  and  enfolds  the  outward  sign.  This 
view,  which  is  found  in  St.  ThomaSj_'ltotum  ab  utro- 
^c,"  has  the  advantage,  apparently,  of  bringing  into 
one  large  synthesis  Incarnation,  Inspiration,  and  all 
other  energies  which  faith  attributes  to  the  same  Holy 
Ghost 

Compatible  with  Human  Weaknesses. — Then, 
argues  Abbot  Fordj  give  us  the  whole  as  inspired 
and  we  ^hall  know  that  the  divine  influence  must  be 
compatible  with  everything  we  find  in  our  original 
Bible.  The  writing  is  always  a  divine  work  ;  should  it 
in  this  earthly  form  be  imperfect,  or  the  writer  betray 
weakness  and  lack  of  knowledge,  or  verbal  inaccuracies 
be^ointed  out,  what  follows?  Merely  that  it  has 
pleased  God  to  suffer  these  things  by  a  condescension 
which  leaves  His  presence  in  the  writing  manifest.  We 
arc  no  judges  a  priori  of  what  it  is  fitting  the  Holy 
Spirit  should  have  put  on  record,  nor  of  how  it  should 
be  done.  He  is  "greatest  in  great  things,  least  in 
least".  To  distinguish  may  be  to  rationalise,  and  to, 
wait  upon  science  for  the  establishment  of  our  faith 
in  Scripture  is  unworthy  of  Christians. 

But  yet,  concludes  Perc  Lagrange,  "  since  the  writer 
used  his  ordinary  faculties,  that  influence  impressed 
nothing  ready  made  upon  his  mind,  not  even  the 
thoughts.  .  ,  .  We  may  never  affirm  that  God  could 
teach  error, — it  would  be  a  blasphemy — but  we  ought 
to  be  very  careful  about  confidently  concluding  that 
a  thing  is  fitting  or  unfitting."  Once  more,  "  God 
teaches  nothing  false,  nor  does  He  base  Himself  upon 
anything  false  as  an  essential  element  of  His  teaching. 
He  is  free  to  make  use  of  our  scientific  or  historical 

15 


226  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

ideas  merely  as  a  means  of  preparing  our  minds,  even 
as  He  might  direct  our  ideas  to  a  given  point  by  a 
comparison  or  a  parable."  ^ 

Freedom  of  Opinions  and  Schools. — "  Catholics," 
said  Dr.  Weathers,  the  late  Bishop  of  Amycla,  "are 
under  no  sort  of  obligation  to  believe  that  inspiration 
extends  to  the  words  of  Holy  Scripture  as  well  as  to 
the  subject  matter  which  is  therein  contained."  By 
some  divines,  as  Vigouroux,  the  caution  is  added, 
"  except  when  a  particular  phrase,  or  even  single  word, 
is  indispensable  for  the  dogmatic  meaning ".  But,  in 
practice,  the  exception  is  well  understood.  There  is  no 
revealed  truth  which  would  be  so  dependent  on  a  text 
as  to  perish  if  its  mere  wording  were  altered, — other- 
wise, how  translate  in  many  cases?  We  may,  there- 
fore, take  it  that  mechanical  views  are  not  favoured 
by  the  Church;  that  "plenary"  inspiration  is  to  be 
discussed  on  its  merits,  and  is  not  binding ;  that  de- 
grees of  illumination  existed  in  the  sacred  writers,  from 
a  general  superintendence  which  guarded  them  against 
failure  as  an  instrument  of  the  Spirit  up  to  the  loftiest 
prophecy;  and  that  the  criterion  whereby  to  judge 
all  stages  of  religious  development  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, as  well  as  its  exposition  in  the  New,  is  the  mind 
of  Christ,  or  the  living  Catholic  tradition.  There  is  a 
true,  an  adequate,  a  universal  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  on  Scripture  and  all  its  parts.  Beyond  this, 
we  find  no  agreement  as  to  its  method  among  theo- 
logians. Neither  Pope  nor  Council  has  defined  the 
nature  of  inspiration,  or  its  modus  operandi,  or  its 
limit  in  the  Bible,  or  its  intrinsic  difference  from  the 
grace  of  illumination  and  premotion  by  which  men 
are  enabled  to  perform  supernatural  acts  generally. 
The  extrinsic  difference  is  known  by  its  object. 

The   Tridentine   Teaching.— We   are    told   in  the 
Vatican  Council  that  the  Sacred  Books  "  contain  Re- 

1  Loisv,  Chroiiique  Bibl.,  Mar.,  1892,  p.  10 ;  Dausch,  Schriftsinspir. ; 
Ford,  Tablet,  Jan.,  Feb.,  1905 ;  Lagrange,  Hist.  Crit.,  89,  91,  112. 


TRWENTINE  DECREE  227 

velation  vvilhrmt  any  admixture  of  error";  and  by 
Trent  that  we  must  not  interpret  them,  "in  things 
of  faith  and  morals  pertaining  to  the  edification  of 
Christian  doctrine,"  contrary  to  the  sense  of  Holy 
Church  or  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers. 
The  complex  description  laid  down  in  this  decree  has 
given  rise  to  argument ;  is  it  a  limiting  phrase,  and  are 
we  allowed  to  dissent,  as  from  the  Fathers  in  things 
outside  faith  and  morals,  so  in  similar  things  from  the 
writer  of  an  inspired  page  ?  The  Tridentine  words  arc 
not  per  se  dogmatic  but  disciplinary.  In  the  Vatican 
Constitution,  which  renewed  and  explained  their  pur- 
pose, a  positive  formula  was  adopted,  while  retaining 
the  full  clause  :  "  In  things  of  faith  and  morals  per- 
taining, etc.,  that  is  to  be  held  for  the  true  .sense  of 
Sacred  Scripture  which  the  Church  has  held  and  does 
hold  ".  Thus  far  the  exegete  is  bound,  as  he  is  by 
the  consent  of  Fathers,  within  the  lines  traced.  But 
is  he  free  (subject  to  sound  judgment  and  literary  can- 
dour) outside  of  them  ?  For,  if  he  should  be,  it  would 
seem  that  the  inerrancy  of  the  biblical  author  in  these 
points  was  open  to  question,  since  they  do  not  bear  on 
Christian  edification.  Again,  does  this  latter  addition 
merely  describe  the  "things  of  faith  and  morals,"  or 
does  it  mean  such  and  such  only  as,  in  fact,  have  a 
bearing  on  the  revealed  sj-stem  ? 

Beneath  controversy  which  may  appear  simply  formal, 
the  issues  are  grave.  W^hether  men  are  bound  to  believe 
every  assertion  in  Scripture  as  belonging,  somehow,  to 
the  Catholic  faith  strictly  taken,  or  whether  those  state- 
ments alone  are  de  fide  Catholica  which  concern  faith 
and  morals,  we  leave  experts  to  decide.  The  real 
point  for  consideration  in  view  of  modern  criticism  lies 
elsewhere.  Must  we  aflfirm  the  truth  of  all  things  which 
the  inspired  writer  avouches,  not  simply  touching  re- 
ligion, but  the  details  of  history  and  human  affairs? 
That  is  the  question.  It  was  evaded  rather  than  met 
by  saying,  that  if  such  details  bear  on  the  deposit  they 

IS* 


228  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

are  guaranteed  from  error,  and  if  not,  the  Councils  lay- 
down  nothing  about  them.  This  last  declaration  is 
correct,  but  it  does  not  settle  the  matter  in  dispute.^ 

Inerrancy  of  Scripture. — Fr.  Nisius,  S.J.,  main- 
tained in  1894  from  the  Encyclical  of  Leo  XIII.,  and 
in  accordance  with  tradition,  that  all  Scripture  being 
inspired  it  is  consequently  infallible  in  every  statement 
which  it  makes  its  own.  How  many  and  of  what  kind 
these  are,  it  is  for  the  exegete  to  determine  by  research, 
and  for  authority  to  set  out  on  occasion.  "  The  teach- 
ing of  tradition,"  says  Nisius,  "  excludes  all  doubt,  yet 
the  fact  of  minute  and  particular  inspiration  is  not  such 
as  to  have  been  often  mentioned  or  solemnly  affirmed 
by  the  Magisterium,  like  the  divine  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture in  general  and  as  regards  faith  and  morals."  Some 
of  the  proofs  quoted  were,  in  his  judgment,  uncertain, 
pointing  to  the  absence  of  a  universal  and  constant 
persuasion.  The  words  of  Trent  and  the  Vatican  were 
not  conclusive.  Divines  of  unimpeachable  orthodoxy 
had  expressed  their  misgivings,  or  denied  that  there 
was  any  article  of  faith  on  the  subject ;  and  controversy 
had  not  been  checked.  Nisius  concluded  against  the 
idea  that  we  may  dispute  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture. 
And  herein  the  Schools  all  over  Christendom  would 
support  him.  In  technical  phrase,  the  veracity  of  Bible 
statements,  whatever  their  subject,  and  of  course  in- 
terpreted by  the  proper  canons  of  exegesis,  was  theo- 
logically certain.^  Pope  Leo  XIII.,  indeed,  teaches: 
"  It  is  absolutely  wrong  to  confine  inspiration  to  certain 
parts  of  Holy  Scripture,  or  to  admit  that  the  sacred 
writer  has  erred.  The  system  of  those  who  do  not 
hesitate  to  grant  that  divine  inspiration  regards  nothing 
beyond  matters  of  faith  and  morals  cannot  be  toler- 
ated." ^  Though  not  a  definition  ex  cathedra,  these 
words  make  it  impossible  for  an  orthodox   defender 

^  Bonaccorsi,  Quest.  Bibl ,  141.  148,  168,  175,  194. 
*  Nisius  in  Bonaccorsi,  supra,  251. 
3  Leo  XIII,,  Provid.  Dens. 


WHAT  IS  BIBLE  TRUTH?  229 

of  Holy  Writ  to  solve  its  problems  by  c^ivirifj  up  its 
inerrancy.  The  opinion  of  which  Origen  was,  perhaps, 
the  earliest  Catholic  exponent,  is  no  lon^^er,  if  at  any 
time  and  in  any  degree  we  can  imagine  it  to  have  been, 
tenable. 

Limits  of  inspired  Statements. — But  the  same  En- 
cyclical which  forbids  us  to  suppose  in  Holy  Writ  state- 
ments of  accepted  error,  goes  on  to  say  that  its  authors 
"  did  not  seek  to  pierce  into  the  secrets  of  nature ;  they 
described  and  dealt  with  matters  in  language  more  or 
less  figurative,  in  terms  which  were  commonly  used,  as 
they  are  to  this  day".  For  "  discourse  properly  tells 
us  of  that  which  falls  under  sensible  observation,  and, 
as  St.  Thomas  puts  us  in  mind,  the  sacred  writers  went 
by  appearances,  setting  down  the  things  signified  by 
the  Almighty  in  ways  which  men  could  understand, 
or  to  which  they  were  used'.  Formal  error  is,  then, 
excluded  ;  but,  according  to  Catholic  teachers  we  need 
not  require  in  various  Scripture-statements,  and  cannot 
expect,  more  than  "  relative  truth  ".  In  other  words, 
"by  virtue  of  inspiration  all  things  in  the  Bible  are 
not  true  in  one  and  the  same  manner  ".  Truth  of  fact 
is  not  truth  of  parable  ;  prose  and  poetry  have  their 
several  modes ;  popular  reports  differ  from  scientific 
statements ;  ancient  history  was  not  fashioned  upon 
rnodern  rules ;  ethical  teaching  never  aims  at  the 
photograph  dear  to  Realism,  and  imagination  tran- 
scends verbal  accuracy;  last  of  all,  insertion  is  not 
simply  assertion.  These  and  the  like  principles,  ap- 
plied with  judgment,  on  grounds  intrinsic  to  the  text 
and  context,  or  suggested  by  historical  survey,  will, 
as  orthodox  opinion  holds,  meet  the  chief  difficulties 
which  we  have  to  encounter.  Inspiration  assuredly 
does  not  bestow  omniscience  on  its  human  subject ; 
his  thought  must  be  finite,  his  expression  borrowed 
from  the  language  and  the  people  that  are  his  im- 
mediate concern.  Add  to  this  textual  corruption,  late 
and  frequent  editorial  work,  glosses  from  the  margin. 


230 


THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 


transposition  of  leaves,  loss  of  sentences, — all  the  acci- 
dents to  which  books  are  liable.  We  seem  thus  to 
_have  come  in  sight  of  St.  Augustine's  rule,  "  If  in  these 
books  I  meet  anything  which  seems  contrary'  to  truth, 
I  shall  not  hesitate  to  conclude  that  the  text  is  faulty, 
or  that  the  translator  has  not  caught  its  meaning,  or 
that  I  do  not  understand".^ 

Better  still  is  that  other  saying  in  the  Confessions : 
"  Mira  profunditas  eloquiorum  tuorum,  quorum  ecce 
ante  nos  superficies  blandiens  parvulis ;  sed  mira  pro- 
funditas, Deus  meus  ! "  The  utterances  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture are  a  great  deep.  As  on  the  lips  of  childhood,  in 
a  language  of  metaphors,  by  lowly  symbol  stooping  to 
the  world's  rudest  desert-folk,  they  reveal  mysteries; 
but  they  mingle  with  high  thought,  as  life  itself  does, 
things  of  every  day,  and  by  the  story  of  a  household 
or  a  tribe  bring  home  to  us  how  read  is  God's  Provi- 
dence. Inspiration  enlarges  the  ripples  that  float  upon 
the  surface  of  time  until  they  become  a  flood  bearing 
Humanity  onwards.  From  such  beginnings  has  the 
universal  religion  sprung.  When  we  view  its  amazing 
fortunes,  well  may  we  cry  out  to  Him  who  has  guided 
it  and  watched  over  its  chronicle,  "  Thy  way  is  in  the 
sea,  and  Thy  path  in  the  great  waters,  and  Thy  foot- 
steps are  not  known  ". 

^  Gigot,  Gen.  Introd.,  552,  555-57 ;  Schanz,  in  Th.  Quartalschri/t, 
1895,  p.  188;  Aug.  ad  Hieron.,  Ep.  82. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

LITERAL,  SPIRITUAL,  ACCOMMODATED  SENSE   OF  THE 

BIBLE. 

The  Hebrew  Mould. — Scripture  as  an  authority  over 
the  minds  of  men  gonsists  not  in  dead  words  but  in 
divine  sense ;  it  is  noPScVipture  for  us  except  it  be 
legitimately  interpreted.  The  rules  upon  which  we 
proceed  in  finding  out  what  the  Bible  means  are  called 
Hermeneutics,  and  to  set  forth  its  meaning  is  exegesis. 
Lilve  all  human  writings,  it  comes  to  us  in  a  language 
the  laws  of  which  (vocabulary,  grammar,  rhetoric)  are 
ascertained  by  use  and  wont.  But  as  being  Hebrew  in 
cast  of  thought,  nay,  in  general  structure,  even  where 
the  dialect  is  common  Greek  of  a  late  and  decadent 
period,  no  interpreter  will  be  equal  to  it,  unless  he  bears 
its  Oriental,  Western-Semite  genius  constantly  in  mind. 
Errors  past  counting  have  sprung  from  violation  of  this 
peremptory  canon.  Knowledge  of  Hebrew  made  St. 
Jerome  the  greatest  among  Latin  commentators ;  the 
want  of  it  led  St.  Augustine  to  employ  his  astonishing 
powers  in  speculations  that  avail  hardly  at  all  when  we 
seek  the  true  purport  of  Psalms  and  Prophecy,  or  would 
enter  into  the  history  of  Israel.  Here,  as  elsewhere,  if 
we  desire  to  understand,  we  must  begin  at  the  begin- 
ning ;  ideals  are  made  real  by  stages  and  moments,  or, 
in  St.  Paul's  words  (i  Cor.  xv.  46),  "That  is  not  first 
which  is  spiritual,  but  that  which  is  natural ;  tJien  that 
which  is  spiritual ".  The  grammarian  precedes,  the 
critic  follows,  the  divine  {i.e.  the  Church  teaching) 
delivers  judgment. 

(231) 


23^  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Three  Ways  of  Interpretation. — Many  senses  have 
been  put  upon  Holy  Writ;  we  bring  them  down  to 
three, — the  literal,  typical  and  accommodated.  By  the 
literal  we  signify  all  that  the  words  in  their  place  and 
time,  as  Scripture  reports  them  when  the  text  has  been 
certified,  were  intended  on  the  writer's  part,  and  under 
God's  guidance,  immediately  to  convey.  The  typical 
(niystic  or  spiritual)  is  a  true  but  second  meaning,  which 
arises  from  the  correspondences  between  persons  and 
events,  on  a  principle  sometimes  named  Recurrence,  due_ 
to  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  has  not  only  brought  these 
things  to  pass,  but  in  figure  has  suggested  them  before- 
hand, setting  type  against  antitype,  and  leading  up  all 
to  Christ.  The  accommodated,  finally,  is  a  religious 
application  of  terms  and  sayings  in  one  part  of  Scripture 
tfo  another,  and  more  generally  to  life  as  by  preachers 
or  saints,  on  the  score  of  a  likeness  detected  between 
the  inspired  words  and  the  events  dwelt  upon.  From 
type  to  accommodation  is  a  gradual  descent ;  where 
either  meets  us  in  the  Bible,  its  record  certainly  falls 
under  inspiration.  But  allusions  are  not,  strictly  speak- 
ing, proofs ;  and  we  should  be  always  careful  to  remem- 
ber that  Greek  logic  is  one  thing,  and  Hebrew  another, 
which  is  rhetorical  after  a  peculiar  fashion  of  its  own. 

Halachah — Haggadah — Midrash. — We  may  con- 
nect these  three  "  senses  "  (which  ultimately  derive  from 
the  literal)  with  Jewish  terms  by  saying  that  the  letter 
prescribes  the  Way  {Halachah) ;  the  type  blossoms  into 
the  Story  {Haggadah)  ;  the  qiccommodation  branches 
out  into  the  Meditation  {Midrash).  Origen,  St.  Jerome, 
and  St,  Thomas,  who  distinguish  a  triple  significance, 
and  St.  Augustine  who  expands  them  to  four  in  one 
place  while  reducing  them  to  "  letter  and  spirit "  in  an- 
other, do  not  contradict  our  position.  But  the  subtle 
African  Father  would  have  brought  in  a  manifold  literal 
sense  as  intended  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  St.  Thomas 
echoes  him.  Catholic  usage  does  not  adopt  such  prin- 
ciples ;  there  is  some  doubt  whether  Aquinas  really  did 


ONE  LITERAL  SENSE  233 

so,  in  spite  of  the  j)assaf^cs  quoted.  "  One  word,  one 
meaning,"  says  Albertus  Magnus ;  Alexander  Hales  tells 
us,  "There  is  one  literal  sense,  but  in  mystery  there  are 
manifold  "  ;  and  St.  Bonaventure,  "  one  literal  and  prin- 
cipal meaning".  St.  Thomas  himself:  "These  mean- 
ings are  not  multiplied  as  if  a  single  word  signified 
many  things ;  but  because  the  things  of  which  words 
are  tokens  may  themselves  serve  as  tokens  of  other 
realities.  Hence  no  confusion  results ;  every  sense  is 
founded  on  the  literal  from  which  alone  an  argument 
can  be  drawn."  The  Angelical  Doctor  does  not  deny 
that  the  typical  sense  exists,  or  was  intended ;  but  with 
St.  Jerome  he  maintains  that  "  spiritual  interpretation 
should  follow  the  order  of  history,"  and  in  his  view 
whatever  might  be  proved  from  any  hidden  sense  in 
Scripture  can  be  demonstrated  from  its  letter  elsewhere. 
To  the  text,  then,  as  such,  we  may  well  attribute  with 
Newman,  "  that  fulness  of  meaning,  refinement  of 
thought,  subtle  versatility  of  feeling,  and  delicate  re- 
serve or  reverent  suggestiveness  which  poets  exemplify," 
and  which  cannot  be  excluded  from  our  idea  of  a  sacred 
composition.^ 

Immediate  and  Remote  Fulfilment. — But  St. 
Thomas  warns  us  that  allegoiy  will  not  convince  un- 
believers, though  it  be  inspired,  and  so  St,  Jerome, 
"  never  can  a  parable  and  the  dubious  interpretation 
of  riddles  avail  for  the  establishment  of  dogmas".- 
Christians,  that  is  to  say,  believing  already  in  a  typical 
sense  guaranteed  by  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles,  re- 
ceive such  illustrations  gladly  ;  but  those  outside  move 
the  previous  question.  Yet  prophecy  fulfilled  is  a 
strong  argument,  wherever  we  can  be  sure  of  a  real 
correspondence  between  the  forecast  and  the  event. 
In  a  great  many  passages  the  Fathers  see  literal,  i.e., 

^  Man.  Bibl.,  i.  273-90;  Cornely,  Gen.  Introd.,  518-43;  Gigot,  vt 
supra,  387  ;  Aug.,  De  Consensu  Evang.,  iii.  27  ;  Newman,  Development, 
289. 

-St.  Th.,  i.  I,  10;  Jerome,  iw  Malt.,  xiii.  33. 


234  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

immediate  reference  to  our  Lord's  coming,  to  His  cross 
and  resurrection,  to  His  reign  as  the  Messiah,  where 
modem  critics  find  a  term  closer  to  the  prophet's 
horizon,  for  example,  David  or  Jeremiah.  There  is 
not,  in  principle,  any  rejection  intended  by  the  latter 
method  of  a  typical  sense  going  on  to  Christ ;  one 
fulfilment  need  not  hinder  a  second,  or  a  grander  issue. 
But  we  should  be  very  slow  to  remove  the  ancient 
landmarks.  Unanimous  consent  of  tradition,  if  shown, 
asserting  such  immediate  reference  of  the  words  to  our 
Lord,  would  be  decisive  for  Catholics.  Did  the  Fathers 
always,  or  generally,  look  at  the  problem  in  this  light  ? 
Or  did  they  take  for  granted  and  treat  /^r  inodum 
unius  the  direct  sense  with  all  its  intermediate  appli- 
cations intended  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  fixing  their  gaze 
on  the  Messiah,  who  summed  them  up  as  verbum 
abbreviatuni,  their  term  and  scope  ?  Such  would  be 
the  inquiry,  at  least  in  outline,  when  each  particular 
instance  fell  under  review.^ 

Philonic  and  Neo-Platonist  Methods. — It  is  well- 
known  that  allegory,  allusive  or  secret  meaning,  was^ 
read  into  Homer  by  the  Greek  sophists  during  the  age 
of  Plato,  for  purposes  apologetic  and  doctrinal.  Socrates 
expended  on  it  his  shafts  of  irony  ;  Plato,  whom  in  his 
later  works  we  may  term  a  Puritan,  holding  the  poets 
to  a  bare  literal  sense,  banished  their  writings,  though 
inspired  by  the  Muse,  from  his  Republic.  The  Septu- 
agint,  addressed  to  an  Hellenic-speaking  audience,  when 
it  softened  the  stark  language  of  the  original  or  turned 
anthropomorphisms  into  abstractions,  took  a  way  the 
reverse  of  Plato's,  and  opened  doors  through  which 
men  like  Aristobulus  and  Philo  brought  in  the  double 
sense.  Philo  remains  the  great  master  of  allegory. 
Unhampered  by  the  Semite  tongue  which  he  did 
not  know,  favouring  ecstasy  and  asceticism,  he  comes 
before  us  as  the  ancestor  of  Origen,  but   equally  of 

*  Cornely,  Gen.  Introd.,  592  ;  Spec.  Introd.,  ii.  302;  Bonaccorsi,  nt 
supra,  130. 


LIMITS  OF  ALLEGORY  235 

the  Alexandrian  Neo-PIatonists  who  despised  matter, 
sought  the  transcendental  in  vision,  and  looked  upon 
the  senses  not  as  aids  but  as  hindrances  to  the  soul's 
development.  Origen  leaned  over  and  fell  on  that 
side.     But  the  New  Testament  holds  the  balance.' 

Sobriety  of  N.  T.  and  Catholic  Dogma.— Our 
pattern  in  all  these  things  is  the  Incarnate  Christ, 
whose  human  nature  was  as  real  as  it  was  holy. 
Therefore  the  spiritual  intent  of  Scripture  must  be 
won  through  the  medium  of  its  letter  and  history, 
not  by  scorning  them  in  a  flight  towards  the  Ineffable. 
St.  Augustine  is  never  willing  to  treat  the  text  as  what 
Germans  have  called  /rete  Dichtuug^ — poetry  without 
a  foundation  in  fact ;  he  sets  up  a  higher  truth,  indeed, 
but  his  principle  (often  applied  very  loosely)  is  that 
we  draw  our  moral  from  events  which  came  to  pass  in 
the  manner  related.'^  And  so  the  Western  tradition 
now  usual  in  commentators.  Catholics  are  always  re- 
luctant to  surrender  the  literal  story,  whether  in  Genesis 
or  Job,  in  the  Haggadic  Esther,  Judith,  Tobit,  or  in 
Daniel  and  its  appendices.  If  we  reckon  the  typical 
sense  to  be  distinct  from  the  allegoric,  and  make  it 
include  terms  both  of  which  are  objectively  real,  then 
we  may  say  that  our  schools  do  not  use  allegory  oftener 
than  the  evidence  will  permit.  For  them  revelation 
and  miracles, — inward  light,  outward  manifestations  of 
energy,  all  from  God's  hand, — give  the  answer  to  dif- 
ficulties founded  on  science  or  other  human  records. 
And  this  appeal  can  never  be  laid  aside ;  but  the  prin- 
ciple of  parsimony  (Occam's  razor)  is  not  thereby  over- 
thrown. That  miracles  are  not  to  be  multiplied  without 
good  reason  is  admitted.  The  universal  inspiration  of 
Scripture,  though  undeniable,  leaves  intact  questions  of 
literary  kinds,  historic  sources,  author's  aim,  and  the 
degree  of  responsibility  for  statements  which  in  a  given 
case  he  assumes.     To  judge  of  these  things  we  must 

1  Hastings,  D.  B.,  "  Allegory  ". 
"  De  Gen.  ad  Lit.,  viii.  i,  etc. 


236  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

look  at  the  phenomena;   by  anticipation  we  cannot 
determine  them. 

Kinds  of  Literature  in  Bible.— All  the  kinds  of 
literature  practised  among  Orientals  of  the  Semite 
branch  are  to  be  found  in  our  Bible.  It  contains  "  old 
history,"  handled  with  freedom,  legends  and  folklore, 
chronicles  quoted  and  abridged,  genealogies  of  peoples 
and  settlements  of  races  according  to  current  views, 
anecdotes  illustrating  the  qualities  of  heroic  men,  laws 
in  every  stage  of  growth  and  decay,  proverbs,  parables, 
apocalypses,  poems,  and  speeches.  It  offers  us  bio- 
graphies viewed  under  a  religious  light ;  apologues  and 
meditative  prayers ;  and  in  such  books  as  Ecclesiasti- 
cus,  Wisdom,  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  St.  John's  Gospel, 
the  principles  of  a  theology  based  on  reflection.  This, 
however,  does  not  easily  shape  into  system,  but  pro- 
ceeds by  aphorism,  is  fragmentary,  intuitive,  and  at 
last  practical.  We  can  hardly  discern  in  Scripture  the 
lines  of  pure  speculation  anywhere.  Greek  science  is 
utterly  foreign  to  it.  The  wisdom  which  it  praises 
and  cultivates  has  nothing  in  common  with  philosophy, 
even  as  understood  by  Socrates.  To  the  Athenian, 
ignorance  was  the  root  of  evil-doing ;  but  to  the  Hebrew, 
disobedience.  Where  the  philosophers  talked  of  the 
nature  of  things,  the  prophet  announced  God's  will  and 
threatened  sinners  with  His  judgments.^ 

Selective  Inspiration. — In  establishing  the  Religion 
of  Humanity  Providence  went  by  selection ;  when 
giving  its  record  Inspiration  follows  a  similar  method. 
The  scheme  begins  and  ends  in  terms  which  are  real 
yet  ideal, — the  first  Adam  stands  over  against  ihe 
second  who  is  Christ.  Between  them  comes  the  bio- 
graphy of  Israel.  Since,  however,  Israel  moves  in  a 
world  of  struggling  forces,  and  by  means  of  them 
arrives  at  self-consciousness,  at  the  heights  of  which 
are  its  prophets  and  the  perfection  of  which  is  the 

^  Compare  the  Protagoras  of  Plato  with  Proverbs  and  Isaiah. 


INSPIRATION  SELECTIVE  237 

Messiah,  an  historical  framework  wherein  it  shall  be 
located  is  necessary.  To  our  abstracting  mood,  a  race 
completely  secluded,  in  charge  of  Revelation  pure  and 
undcfilcd,  as  a  sort  of  divine  mathematics,  might  have 
seemed  requisite.  But  the  laws  of  life  are  different 
from  our  imaginings  ;  continuity  which  allows  of  specific 
approximation  to  a  .scope  determined  beforehand  is 
God's  way, — the  struggle  which  is  crowned  witli  vic- 
tory, but  which  cannot  take  place  without  garments 
rolled  in  blood  (Isa.  ix.  5).  Selection,  therefore,  from 
the  pre-existing  elements,  not  only  of  race,  but  of  ideas, 
laws,  institutions,  customs.  Adam,  Noah,  Abraham, 
Jacob,  Moses,  David,  Isaiah  and  the  Prophets, — at 
eVery  stage  we  mark  a  more  precise  limitation,  with 
greater  depth  of  con  Lents,  until  we  reach  the  antitype 
in  whom  dwelt  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily 
(Coloss.,  ii.  9),  That  is  the  larger  sense  which  lays  a 
ground-plan  comprising  all  portions  of  Holy  Scripture 
and  which  rounds  Genesis  into  the  Apocalyp.'^e,  every 
particular  seeming  to  be  from  chance,  yet  the  whole 
animated  by  one  spirit.  For  if  we  transfer  any  book 
of  the  Bible  into  another  literature,  it  will  cry  out  to 
be  restored  whence  it  came  ;  it  cannot  be  isolated  from 
its  original  source,  or  endure  assimilation  with  profane 
writing. 

This  Method  Determines  Contents. — We  might 
always  have  learned,  merely  by  considering  either 
Testament,  that  it  sifted  out  from  heathen  knowledge 
whatever  was  not  refractory  to  its  purpose,  and  that 
religion  was  exclusively  its  concern, — religion  embodied 
ill  the  story  of  Israel.  The  method  has  determined  the 
contents.  Unless  there  be  a  revealed  natural  science 
in  the  Bible,  every  statement  which  it  includes  on 
physical  matters  will  be  traceable  to  the  mind  of  each 
period, — to  popular  language  and  traditions.  But  even 
its  religious  ideas  will  be  clad  in  forms  derived  from 
ancestry  and  environment.  These  constitute  for  Reve- 
lation the  pluDitdsmata,  contingent  and  earthly,  apart 


238  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

from  which  it  was  not  given,  Israel  came  up  through 
a  world  of  antecedents,  Babylonian,  North  Arabian, 
Egyptian,  Assyrian  ;  it  was  long  in  contact  with 
Persians  and  Greeks ;  it  fell  under  the  Roman  yoke ; 
and  its  beliefs  did  not  cease  to  affect  Christian  doctrine 
till  a  generation  had  passed  after  the  ruin  of  Jerusalem. 
Such  is  the  drama  which  occupies  more  than  twenty- 
three  centuries.  When  its  first  act  begins  Hammurabi 
has  just  written  his  Code.  We  watch  its  denouement 
under  Vespasian,  Titus,  Hadrian.  By  this  time  the 
legends  and  laws  of  Babylonia  have  yielded  their  place 
to  Persian  or  Hellenic  influences,  and  Rome  is  pre- 
paring a  kingdom  for  Christ  on  its  seven  hills.  In  the 
library  of  Nebo  at  Borsippa  those  tablets  had  been 
stored  up,  on  which  were  recorded  the  primeval  cos- 
mogonies that  Israel  was  destined  to  cleanse  from 
polytheistic  error.  Adaptation,  selection,  the  guidance 
of  a  divine  light  over  them, — if  we  refuse  to  admit 
that  in  this  way  the  Hebrew  worship  of  one  God  was 
planted  into  historical  soil  we  have  no  key  to  Israel's 
triumph  or  the  composition  of  Scripture.  But  grant- 
ing so  much,  we  understand  why  the  Priestly  Narrator 
begins  his  Book  of  Genesis  with  a  story  of  creation  in 
which  the  materials  are  clearly  Babylonian  ;  and  why 
the  prophetic  account  of  Eden,  the  Fall,  and  Paradise 
Lost,  should  take  us  back  to  the  country  whence  Abra- 
ham set  out  on  his  pilgrimage.  Here  is  a  sure  beginning 
in  time  and  place,  with  an  indefinite  but  real  back- 
ground out  of  which  to  draw  the  true  religious  elements, 
correcting  the  false  by  God-given  intuition.^ 

Not  Allegory  but  Development. — This  method  of 
interpretation,  critical  and  historical,  never  losing  sight 
of  the  Divine  Idea  that  little  by  little  dawned  upon  the 
inner  sense  of  Israel,  cannot  but  supersede  the  more 
ancient,  by  incorporating  what  was  good  in  them  sever- 
ally.    It  seeks  the  literal  meaning  first  of  all.     In  the 

*  Compare  and  illustrate  these  positions  in  Hastings,  D.  B,,  •'  The 
Religion  of  Israel  "  (Kautzsch). 


THE  GROWING  LIGHT  239 

sacred  writers  it  leads  us  to  recoj^nisc  men  who  brougjht 
a  deep  monotheistic  certitude  to  bear  on  the  stories 
handed  down  from  the  past ;  and  who  applied  it,  each 
in  his  own  way,  to  the  cosmic  poems,  catalogues  of 
nations,  incidents  picturesque  or  romantic,  that  they 
wrought  into  an  edifying  tale.  Their  selection  went 
largely  by  exclusion.  No  system  of  impersonal  forces 
would  have  been  understood  in  that  pre-scientific  age. 
The  world  was  created  and  governed  by  Elohim  or 
Jahweh,  names  of  the  one  Supreme,  not  by  the  gods 
many  and  lords  many  of  Babylonian  myths.  These 
were  false  gods ;  Ea,  Bel,  Anu,  Marduk,  cannot  be 
found  in  Genesis.  And,  from  the  first,  religion  was 
also  ethics ;  the  law  of  God  is  holy  and  righteous. 
Whether  we  distinguish  four  principal  authors  in  the 
Book  of  Origins,  or  ascribe  the  whole  to  Moses,  we 
shall  never  light  upon  a  passage  where  to  be  cere- 
monially exact  is  the  sum  of  religion.  Rude  primitive 
conceptions  we  must  allow ;  but  even  in  a  story  that 
betrays  them,  such  as  the  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  a  better 
spirit  gleams  through  the  shadow  and  furnishes  the 
moral.  The  irony  peculiar  to  all  great  legend,  wherein 
a  knot  is  tied  that  it  may  be  unbound  (seeming  in- 
justice, undeserved  misfortune,  and  the  like),  has  its 
analogue  in  Revelation  proceeding  by  stages.  That 
which  was  once  tolerated,  or  even  matter  of  command, 
pales  before  the  higher  good,  is  condemned  and  finally 
cast  out.  But  the  faithful  historian  records  it.  He 
cannot  do  otherwise ;  yet  the  instruction  we  are  to 
gain  may  be  avoidance,  not  imitation.  Read  for  this 
principle  St.  Paul's  sermon  on  the  Hill  of  Mars,  with 
his  praise  and  blame  of  the  "  religious "  Athenians  ^ 
(Acts  xvii.  22). 

'  Lagrange,  ut  supra,  60-80;  105  ;  Hummelauer,  Excg.  Inspir..  14- 
24.  30-33;  Newman,  Arians,  78;  Clem.  AJex.,  Stromata,  vii.  2. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

LAWS  AND  INSTANCES. 

Antitheses  of  Old  and  New  Testament. — It  is  only 
by  slow  steps  that  our  divines,  who  started  from  the 
realised  Idea  or  deductively,  have  followed  the  critics, 
intent  as  these  were  on  describing  what  they  found  in 
lower  and  merely  inchoate  processes  of  its  exhibition. 
But  there  had  always  been  a  feeling  that  in  the  Old 
Testament,  especially  as  it  went  back  to  primitive 
periods,  the  literal  acceptance  could  not  be  unqualified. 
When  the  Gnostics,  like  Marcion,  set  in  parallel  columns 
their  "  antitheses  "  of  both  Testaments,  how  were  they 
to  be  met?  Origen  did  not  solve  the  problem  by 
almost  suppressing  one  of  its  terms.  Nor  did  St. 
Augustine,  who  sometimes  allegorised  and  sometimes 
idealised,  in  order  to  escape  difficulties.  The  other 
school,  represented  by  St.  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and 
St.  Jerome,  enlarged  the  human  element,  granted  as 
much  as  they  could  to  the  imperfections  of  language 
and  sensible  appearances,  and  thus  far  approached  the 
critical  method  ;  but  their  observations  were  vague  and 
general,  nor  did  they  reduce  these  hints  to  a  system. 

Story  of  Creation  in  Genesis :  Basil,  Augustine. — 
As  for  scientific  problems,  they  did  not  trouble  Easterns 
who,  with  St.  Basil,  took  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis 
in  their  obvious  literal  sense.  St.  Augustine,  by  tem- 
per a  Neo-Platonist,  began  his  defence  of  the  creation- 
story  by  writing  against  the  Manichaeans  ;  but  a  larger 
view,  as  he  thought,  was  expressed  in  his  two  subse- 

(240) 


THE  SIX  DAYS  24 1 

quent  tractates,  Dr  Gencsi  ad  Littcram}  Here  the 
openinfT  chapter  of  the  Bible  is  dealt  with  as  recording 
a  vision,  or  series  of  disclosures  made  in  figure  to  the 
heavenly  spirits ;  the  history  becomes  a  parable.  As 
for  the  true  creation,  it  took  place  in  a  moment,  "  simul- 
taneously "  ;  the  six  days  were  ideal  representations 
which  did  not  correspond  with  a  succession  in  time.''' 
But,  on  this  point  like  so  many  more,  the  Augustinian 
theory  stood  alone.  It  was  never  condemned,  yet 
found  little  favour.  The  common  opinion  of  Fathers 
and  Schoolmen  reckoned  a  day  of  twenty-four  hours, 
a  week  of  seven  such  days,  and  the  world  animate  and 
inanimate  was  brought  during  that  period  out  of 
nothing  into  being.  There  could,  however,  be  no 
dogmatic  force  in  a  consensus  which,  though  numeric- 
ally overpowering,  had  against  it  the  sublime  Western 
Doctor,  and  on  his  side  the  Angel  of  the  Schools.^ 
A  decision  by  authority  on  the  subject  has  never 
existed,  nor  is  one  likely  to  be  pronounced.  In  this 
controversy  the  importance  of  so  marked  a  variation 
was  negative  rather  than  positive.  We  may  judge  the 
visions  proposed  by  our  philosophic  Saints  to  be  fanci- 
ful as  any  dream  ;  but  they  served  to  keep  the  path 
open  until  critical  science  was  ready.  To  deny  the 
literal  truth  of  i  Genesis  has  never  been  contrary  to 
tradition. 

It  is  Prophetic,  not  Scientific. — Even  if  we  read 
that  story  of  the  Six  Days  as  Eastern  Fathers  were 
wont,  it  involves  a  revelation.  To  Chrysostom,  Theo- 
doret,  Julius  Africanus,  Basil,  Gregory,  Nyssen,  Moses 
appears  to  be  a  prophet ;  and  Severian  of  Gabala 
compares  him  with  Adam,  since  both  learned  in  vision 
the  secrets  of  God's  working.  Hence  the  last  writer 
declares  that  the  Hexaemeron  should  not  be  taken  for 

*  Hummelauer,  Noclmtals  der  biblische  Schopfungsbcricht,  118  seq,; 
Aug.,  Dc  Gen.  ad  Lit.,  iv.  28. 
"Aug.,  lit  supra,  iv.  41,  51,  etc. 
^  St.  Thorn.,  in  it.  Sent.,  Distinct,  12,  2. 

16 


242  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

mere  history ;  it  is  a  prophecy  from  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  Moses  received.^  Some  modern  Catholic  writers 
have  suggested  a  vision  of  Adam,  told  to  his  children, 
and  so  falling  within  compass  of  tradition  for  an  in- 
spired chronicler  to  set  it  down.  This  view  consorts 
well  with  a  system,  largely  prevalent  among  Christians 
of  every  shade,  according  to  which  a  Revelation  was 
bestowed  on  the  first  Man,  and  though  dimmed  by  the 
Fall,  never  withdrawn  from  his  descendants.  In  that 
light  Adam,  it  is  held,  learned  the  secret  of  his  origin 
and  his  consequent  duty  towards  the  Creator.  Let  it 
be  remembered  that,  on  any  supposition,  the  editors 
of  Genesis  (J.  E.  P.)  were  composing  a  sacred  history; 
that  they  repeatedly  invoke  divine  communications  by 
dreams,  apparitions,  oracular  words,  symbolic  and  super- 
natural utterances.  Undoubtedly,  in  their  belief,  the 
father  of  our  race  was  enlightened  from  on  high  touch- 
ing his  creation,  his  place  among  living  creatures,  his 
own  nature,  physical  and  ethical.  He  had  a  vision  of 
the  world  around  him  (Gen.  ii.  i6,  19),  and  the  sacred 
narratives  would  suffer  no  violence  if  we  prolonged 
that  divinely-given  glance  backwards  until  it  included 
a  knowledge  (in  figure  and  outline)  of  God's  universal 
action,  so  far  as  it  had  a  bearing  on  primitive  religion.^ 
Formulas  of  Concord — Periodism. — One  thing  is 
sure ;  we  cannot  relegate  to  a  secondary  place  the 
prophetic  character  which  Genesis  claims  and  exhibits. 
Either,  then,  we  ascribe  such  elements  to  a  tradition 
which  connected  the  age  of  its  writing  with  memories 
from  an  immeasurable  past,  or  we  are  driven  to  explain 
them  by  later  influences,  thanks  to  which  the  inspired 
teacher  sifted  out  of  what  was  reported  in  "old  history" 
its  religious  truth.  Vision  we  may  not  altogether 
choose, — though  it  was  certainly  the  form  of  all  wis- 

^  References  in  Hummelauer,  ut  supra,  120. 

^  For  objections  to  a  "  primitive  revelation  "  see  Delitzsch,  Bubel 
and  Bible,  Lects.  i.-ii.  But  cf.  Wisd.  x.  i ;  Ecclus.  xvii.  1-12  ;  and  the 
School-treatises,  De  Gratia  Adami, 


PERIODISM  243 

dom,  earthly  or  heavenly,  in  the  world's  childhood  ; 
but  prophecy  we  have  no  warrant  for  rejecting.  So 
much,  if  it  be  granted,  will  enable  us  to  decide  whether 
we  can  accept  any  of  the  formulas  of  concord  between 
the  narratives  in  Genesis  and  the  testimony  of  the  rocks 
that  flourished  like  Jonah's  gourd,  and  like  it  withered, 
during  the  last  hundred  years,  or  whether  we  should 
frankly  have  done  with  them.  There  is  perfect  freedom 
on  two  conditions ;  the  Church  will  not  allow  an  im- 
putation of  mistake  to  be  fastened  on  Genesis  ;  and 
she  upholds  a  doctrine  of  creation  by  the  fiat  of  an 
ever-living,  personal  Deity,  Whose  will  is  goodness  and 
His  law  righteousness.  Diversity  of  exposition,  leaving 
these  truths  intact,  has  reigned  among  theologians  at 
all  times,  but  especially  since  the  discoveries  of  science 
inaugurated  by  Hutton  and  the  geologists  (1785). 

These  efforts,  until  recently,  have  aimed  at  a  re- 
conciliation of  Genesis  with  scientific  data  by  way  of 
concordance.  The  literal  system  to  which  all  Greek 
Fathers,  not  counting  Origen,  and  all  Western  divines, 
except  SS.  Augustine  and  Thomas,  had  given  their 
suffrage  was  abandoned.  In  general  the  six  days 
became  six  periods  of  indefinite  length,  and  each  was 
imagined  as  the  record  of  a  series,  corresponding  to 
the  gradual  development  which  the  cosmos  underwent 
till  man  appeared.  There  was  a  "  connection  between 
science  and  revealed  religion  "  amounting  to  agreement 
on  these  points.  Moses  had  been  taught  the  true  suc- 
cession of  things  from  matter  to  life ;  he  knew  the 
history  of  organisms ;  he  gave  their  order  of  creation 
as  the  fossil  strata  disclosed  it.  Endless  and  kaleido- 
scopic variations  were  elicited  from  these  ideas.  They 
may  be  studied  in  our  text-books ;  but  have  now  little 
more  than  historical  interest.^ 

Not  Founded  on  Tradition  or  Science. — The  con- 

'  Vigouroux,  Man.  Bill.,  i.  456-507  indicates  principal  systems  and 
defends  Periodism  ;  Hunimelauer,  Nochmals  dcr  biblische  iichopfuii^s- 
bericht,  51. 

16* 


244  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

cordance  proposed  has  never  been  allowed  on  its 
physical  or  biological  side  in  the  world  of  science.  It 
seems  to  rest  on  a  baseless  theory  of  inspiration.  It  is 
hard  to  reconcile  with  the  words  of  Genesis,  if  it  does 
not  decidedly  contradict  them.  As  a  scientific  explana- 
tion in  every  form  yet  devised  it  fails  to  satisfy  the 
conditions ;  and  the  growth  of  historical  criticism,  re- 
acting powerfully  on  general  ideas,  has  gone  far  to 
discredit  a  doctrine  according  to  which  the  inspired 
teacher  of  Israel,  aliud  agens,  concerned  with  religion 
for  his  own  age  and  people,  should  have  consigned  a 
system  of  geology  to  his  text,  there  during  thirty-two 
centuries  to  lie  hidden,  until  profane  investigation 
made  it  known.  The  analogy  of  faith,  not  furnishing 
a  second  instance,  hardly  seemed  in  its  favour.  Per- 
haps its  greatest  disadvantage  was  that  it  laid  on 
religion  the  perpetual  duty  of  inventing  hypotheses 
on  which  scientific  men  were  to  pass  judgment.  Not 
so  had  the  Gospel  won  its  triumphs.  Religion  holds 
supreme  jurisdiction  in  its  proper  domain.  But  here 
it  was  subordinate  and  bound  to  submit ;  for  of  its 
own  knowledge  what  could  it  define  in  geology  ?  The 
crucial  case  of  Galileo  had  proved  that  Scripture-as- 
tronomy is  the  astronomy  of  appearances  and  popular 
speech.  Why  should  its  cosmology  be  different  ?  The 
truth  of  the  Bible  is  preserved,  not  by  reading  into  it 
opinions  or  discoveries  of  an  after-time,  but  by  insisting 
on  its  message  and  the  audience  immediately  in  wie.w. 
Concord  between  disparates  was  not  required,  but  a 
clear  apprehension  of  their  proper  scope  and  limits. 

Certain  it  is  that  scientific  authorities  do  not  assent 
to  the  propositions  which  our  reconciling  school  offers 
them,  in  detail  or  in  general, — a  fact  which  any  text- 
book of  palaeontology  will  demonstrate.^  And  again, 
the  views  put  forward  have  none  of  the  characteristics 
which  appertain  to  matters  of  faith.     We  discover  in 

^  Huxley,  Science  and  Heb.  Trad.,  66  seq.  ;  Essays,  iv.  and  v.  in  same 
vol. 


PERIODISM  GIVEN  UP  245 

them  nothing  fixed  or  settled  ;  the  moment  they  quit 
the  letter  of  Genesis  they  run  out  into  suppositions 
which  cannot  be  verified  from  Catholic  tradition,  written 
or  unwritten,  and  which  are  always  changing.  No 
deductions  in  Bible  exegesis  can  be  founded  on  them, 
as  in  it  they  have  no  support.  The  physical  problems 
involved  arc  utterly  beyond  the  competence  of  religious 
dogmatics.  We  may  hold  it  inconceivable  that  the 
Church  will  ever  pronounce  under  anathema  that  light 
was  created  before  the  sun,  or  vice  versa ;  that  a  cer- 
tain succession  of  animal  and  vegetable  life  is  de  fide ; 
that  the  stars  came  into  being  after  the  earth  was 
made ;  or  other  propositions  of  a  like  tenor.  The 
Bible  statements  ought  to  be  dealt  with  in  their  text 
and  context;  critically,  and  therefore  religiously;  on 
modern  science  (which  they  do  not  contemplate)  they 
throw  not  a  single  ray  of  light,  and  with  them  it 
is  not  concerned.  Of  course  there  are  principles  of 
Natural  Theology  that  science  is  bound  to  respect ; 
when  the  biologist  advances  to  man,  he  is  dealing 
with  a  complex  creature,  subject  to  religion  and  in 
this  way  beyond  his  rule.  But  so  long  as  physics 
and  the  cognate  studies  keep  inside  their  boundary, 
Revelation  in  Church  or  Bible  lets  them  alone.  Such 
is  the  feeling  that  has  prompted  eminent  commen- 
tators, who  saw  difficulties  without  issue  in  schemes  of 
reconcilement,  to  declare  against  the  system  of  days 
which  were  periods,  and  to  turn  away  from  questions 
of  geology  with  all  their  details,  as  not  contained  in 
Scripture.  For  the  solution  of  its  problems  they  have 
employed  critical  methods  and  the  history  which  lies 
beneath  it.^ 

Semite  Cosmogonies. — Fragments  of  Semite  cos- 
mogonies have  long  been  familiar  to  scholars.  The 
Phoenician,  derived  by  Eusebius  from  Philo  Byblius, 

'  Against  _concqrdism.  Bishop  Clifford  in  Dublin  Review,  April 
and  Oct.,  1881;  Hummelauer  ttt  Gen.  and  Nochmals  der  biblische 
Schopfungsbericht. 


246  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

who  is  said  by  the  Greek  Father  as  well  as  by  Porphyry 
to  have  translated  the  original  out  of  Sancuniathun, 
may  be  read,  though  much  mutilated,  in  the  Prczpar- 
atio  Evangelica.  The  Babylonian,  composed  about 
300  B.C.  by  Berossus,  put  into  Greek  by  Alexander 
Polyhistor,  but  greatly  cormpted,  hung  loose  in  the 
Chronicon  of  Eusebius,  who  did  not  value  what  he 
quoted.  These  broken  lights  were  regarded  as  of 
little  or  no  account  when,  in  1875,  George  Smith 
made  his  famous  decipherment  of  the  Creation  tablets, 
— cuneiform  texts  which  presented  in  the  lines  of  an 
epic  poem  such  close  parallels  to  Genesis  that  it  be- 
came a  question  which  was  the  prior  group  of  writings, 
the  Biblical  or  Babylonian.  Other  tablets  exhibited 
resemblances  in  matter  and  style  to  the  story  of 
Paradise,  the  Flood  (1872),  the  legend  of  Nimrod, 
and  so  forth.  In  1887  the  amazing  find  at  Tel-el- 
Amarna  in  Egypt  of  three  hundred  more  tablets, 
mostly  in  the  Assyrian  script,  dating  from  about  1400 
to  1370  B.C.,  revealed  that  Babylonian  ideas  and  in- 
fluence dominated  the  period.  Further  additions 
were  made  to  this  correspondence  at  Lachish.  It 
was  clearly  shown  that  Palestine  lay  within  the  sphere 
of  these  religious  and  literary  traditions  in  the  age 
assigned  to  Moses  ;  while,  according  to  the  critical 
view  of  a  late  and  composite  Hexateuch,  the  same 
influence  was  beyond  denial  in  its  pages.^ 

Parallels  in  Genesis — Their  Date. — Nothing  has 
occurred  to  weaken  these  assertions ;  on  the  contrary, 
all  our  information  tends  towards  a  result  which  may 
be  stated  thus  :  as  the  Christian  religion  sifted  and 
took  up  into  a  higher  synthesis  the  elements  of 
Judaism,  so  did  the  religion  of  Israel  adapt,  under 
divine  supervision,  the  cosmology,  laws  and  other 
usages  of  Babylon,  so  far  as  they  were  compatible  with 

'  Translat.  ot  texts  in  Schrader,  K.  Insry.,  i.  1-56,  E.  Tr. ;  Sayce, 
Crit.  Mon.,  63-71,  gi,  loi,  107-13  ;  L.  W.  King,  Seven  Tablets  of 
Creation. 


GENESIS  AND  BABYLON  247 

the  worship  of  Jahwch.  In  Gen.  i.  we  are  reading  a 
purified  form  of  this  very  ancient  story,  as  one  line 
of  tradition  gave  it,  no  longer  dedicated  to  polytheism, 
stripped  of  its  mythological  features,  but  recognisable 
still  by  its  language  and  symbols.  The  particulars 
must  be  left  for  a  commentary.^  It  is  impossible  to 
doubt  the  relation  of  Hebrew  and  Babylonian  world- 
histories,  or  to  grant  that  the  Jewish  are  the  more 
primitive.  In  point  of  redaction  the  narrative  P.  C.  is 
junior  to  J.  and  E.  by  centuries.  The  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  comes  later  than  the  second  and  third.  How 
early  the  tradition,  as  distinct  from  its  committal  to 
Scripture,  may  be  among  the  children  of  Israel,  we  have 
so  far  no  means  of  deciding.  Rut  the  probabilities 
are  that  it  goes  back  to  exceedingly  ancient  times. 
In  any  case,  one  conclusion  stands  out  plain.  We 
cannot  resist  the  evidence  that  whenever  and  by 
whomsoever  the  Book  of  Genesis  was  written,  its 
^smological  vesture  already  lay  to  hand  in  the  circle 
ofjAssyrian  beliefs.  Guidance  was  needed  to  elimin- 
ate those  ideas  which  a  purer  theology  could  not  take 
up  into  itself.  But  the  general  view,  as  a  cosmography, 
had  long  been  current ;  and  since  Revelation  does 
not  teach  that  the  earth  is  a  flat  disc,  or  that  it  rests 
upon  a  vast  abyss,  or  that  above  it  is  a  solid  firmament, 
and  beyond  that  a  heavenly  ocean,  we  must  infer  that 
these  figurative  concepts,  once  real  to  Hebrews  and 
Babylonians  alike,  furnish  only  the  media  whereby 
everlasting  religious  verities  have  been  taught 

St.  Thomas  on  Truth  of  Gen.  i. — Unless  a  divinely 
imparted  science  was  to  be  given,  what  other  method 
could  have  served  the  designs  of  Providence  ?  A  dis- 
pensation is  of  course  conceivable,  in  which  nian  would 
have  been  taught  passively  all  human  knowledge  ;  but  if  - 
that  was  not  proposed,  then,  to  speak  about  the  origin 

'Gunkel,  On  Genesis,  maybe  consulted,  though  we  cannot  grant 
many  of  his  deductions ;  also,  Jastrow,  Religioti  of  Babylonia  and 
Assyria, 


248  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

of  things  in  Hebrew  (whether  in  1 500  or  in  500  B.C.) 
and  not  to  make  use  of  the  ordinary  language,  involving 
the  received  ideas,  was  impossible.  Those  ideas,  we 
judge,  are  but  the  outward  form,  to  be  carefully  dis- 
tinguished from  the  inward  essence,  of  religion.  Or, 
as  St.  Thomas  declares  concerning  the  origin  of  things, 
"it  is  part  of  the  substance  of  faith  that  the  world 
began  by  creation ;  and  this  all  the  Saints  teach  with 
one  accord.  But  in  what  manner  and  order  it  was 
made,  is  of  faith  only  pej^  accidens.  (indirectly)  so  far 
as  it  is  delivered  in  Scripture,  the  truth  of  which  being 
secured,  our  holy  men  have  expounded  it  in  a  variety 
of  ways."  Now,  Gen.  i.  had  its  truth  for  those  whom 
it  addressed  immediately  in  the  sole  manner  which 
they  could  grasp ;  and  for  us  it  is  true  in  our  manner, 
which  allows  a  religious  significance  most  invaluable 
and  sublime  to  its  cosmology,  but  subordinates  the 
form  and  whatever  else  is  thereby  implied  to  the  scope, 
the  age,  and  the  environment  of  him  who  delivered  it.^ 
The  "Toledoth"  of  Adam  and  Patriarchs. — System 
is  not  the  Scripture  way  of  handling  great  subjects. 
In  Gen.  i.  a  strophic  arrangement  has  been  detected ; 
Gen.  ii.-iii.  are  not  so  much  a  poem  as  a  symbolical 
narrative  which  we  can  never  deal  with,  in  spite  of 
St.  Augustine,  as  though  it  were  a  history  in  the  Books 
of  Kings."^  Neither  scientific  treatise  nor  baseless  myth, 
we  may  compare  the  Toledoth  of  Adam,  Noah,  and  the 
Patriarchs  to  those  Northern  Sagas  which  recounted 
in  lofty  words  the  story  of  the  past.  Clement  of 
Alexandria  and  his  followers  would  have  us  term 
"  Economies "  the  picturesque  or  parabolic  relations 
that,  by  incident  rather  than  argument,  lay  bare  man's 
heart  and  generalise  the  laws  of  life  by  means  of  types 
— Adam  and  Eve,  Cain  and  Abel,  Enoch  and  Noah. 
It  is  the  ideal  element  in  these  logoi  which  religion 

1/m  «.  Sent,,  12,  9,  i,  ar.  ii;  S.  T.  Pars.  i.  68,  i;  St.  Aug.,  De 
Gen.  ad  Lit.,  i.  i8. 

"^De  Gen.  ad  Lit,,  viii.  i. 


STORY  OF  EDEN  249 

brings  out  with  so  incomparable  a  charm  ;  but,  of  course, 
they  are  founded  on  history  which  the  story-teller 
throws  into  focus,  according  to  the  custom  of  the 
East.  All  is  personality  with  him ;  but  all  is  likewise 
symbol.  God  Himself  becomes  one  of  the  dramatis 
personcE,  in  form  and  language  like  a  man.  This 
"condescension,"  which  greatly  exercised  Christian 
minds  later,  and  was  a  rock  of  offence  to  Grecian 
heresiarchs,  seemed  perfectly  natural  in  the  eyes  of 
a  Semite,  for  whom  the  divine  manifestations  were 
outward  as  well  as  spiritual.  "  The  Old  Testament 
does  not  proceed  by  abstract  speculations,"  observes 
Vigouroux,  quoting  Theodoret  in  reference,  no,  "it 
simply  tells  us  the  acts  of  God,"  And  it  tells  them 
pictorially,  in  short  scenes  which  are  apologues.  What 
is  the  law  of  such  a  method?  As  in  visions  of  the 
night,  where  everything  takes  a  shape  or  a  voice, 
distinct  from  the  dreamer,  we  may  call  it  "  dramatic 
sundering  "  ;  the  reality  is  made  known  by  figures,  not 
omitting  even  the  Most  High,  each  bearing  its  own 
character  and  significance.  From  Genesis  to  Apoca- 
lypse this  rule  does  not  vary.  Hence  we  can  feel  no 
difficulty  in  applying  it  to  the  numerous  theophanies, 
of  which  none  is  more  human,  as  few  have  a  deeper 
meaning,  than  the  first  in  Paradise.^ 

Paradise  and  the  Fall  of  Man. — This  beautiful  sad 
story  of  Eden  reaches  us  from  the  hand  of  the  Jahwist, 
so  moderns  have  shown.  How  much  of  a  parallel  to 
the  Scripture  narrative  can  be  made  out  from  the  third 
Creation  Tablet  is  disputed.  But  the  description  of 
the  garden,  the  tree  of  life,  the  four  rivers  of  Paradise, 
the  cherubim  and  the  flaming  sword,  are  unmistakably 


'Hastings,!).  B.,  iv.  115,  "Prophecy";  for  Theophanies,  read 
Gen.  iii.  8,  ix.  8,  xi.  5,  xv.  1-17,  xviii.  1-33,  xxii.  11,  xxvi.  24, 
xxviii.  13,  xxxii.  i,  24;  Exod.  iii.  2,  xix.  18,  xxiv.  10,  xxxiii.  22; 
Josh.  V.  13;  Jud.  vi.  n-23 ;  i  Sam.  iii.  i-io;  i  Kings  xix.  9-X5 ;  Isa. 
vi.  1-8;  Ezek.  i.  26-28  ;  Zech.  i.-vi. ;  Dan.  vii.  9,  x.  8  ;  Matt.  xvii.  1-9; 
Mark  i.  10;  Luke  i.  11,  ii.  9;  John  xii.  28;  Apoc.  i.  13. 


250  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

Assyro-Babylonian.^  To  call  in  Zoroaster  with  his 
legend  of  the  first  man,  Yima,  does  not  appear  neces- 
sary. Catholic  teachers  have  long  insisted  that  a 
doctrine  of  the  Fall  is  everywhere  hinted  in  myth  and 
tradition.^  Although,  hitherto,  strict  resemblances  to 
the  story  of  Adam  and  Eve  are  not  found  among  the 
cuneiform  remains,  the  instances  quoted  above  will  de- 
monstrate how  surely  Eden,  in  which  their  trial  took 
place,  had  a  Sumerian  analogue.  From  earliest  ages 
the  interpretation  of  Gen  ii.  -  iii.  was  matter  of  dispute 
among  Fathers  and  theologians.  All  agreed  in  the 
religious  dogmas  of  man's  lapse  from  original  justice 
under  temptation,  the  curse  laid  upon  him,  the  promise 
of  a  Redeemer.  But  the  letter  and  the  spirit  were 
constantly  set  in  opposition  by  allegorists,  and  defended 
as  both  true  by  literalists,  among  the  latter  being,  in 
this  instance,  St.  Augustine. 

Details  to  what  Extent  Figurative? — Origen 
against  Celsus  (iv.  39)  refers  the  whole  to  allegory. 
Upon  which  a  recent  French  Bishop,  Freppel  of 
Angers,  has  remarked,  "  Origen  certainly  did  not  go 
beyond  his  rights  when  he  explained  in  the  allegorical 
sense  what  Genesis  relates  concerning  the  formation  of 
Eve  and  the  part  played  by  the  serpent.  That  opinion, 
revived  by  Cardinal  Cajetan,  though  very  bold,  has  not 
fallen  under  ecclesiastical  censure.  If  the  writer  against 
Celsus  had  restricted  his  defence  to  the  first  chapters  of 
Genesis,  which  are  full  of  mysteries,  we  should  not 
severely  reproach  him."  Von  Hummelauer,  S.J.,  and 
Hoberg  would  consider  the  creation  of  Eve  as  shadowed 
forth  in  vision  to  Adam,  "in  a  divine  ecstasy,"  with 
which  they  compare  Abraham's  (Gen.  xv.  12)  and  St. 
Peter's  (Acts  x.  10).  As  it  is  certain  that  the  apparition 
of  Jahweh  belongs  to  the  supernatural  order,  analogy 
bears  out  this  view.     Some  admixture  of  parable  can- 

1  See  Gunkel,  Schopfung  n.  Chaos,  and  his  comment  on  Gen. 
'^  Vigouroux,  M.  B.,  i.  52G-JO  ;  La  Bible  ct  les  Decouvertes  Modenics, 
i.  259. 


IMPLICIT  QUOTATIONS  251 

not  be  avoided,  once  we  allow  that  the  language  of 
anthropomorphism  requires  explanation.  And  so  Car- 
dinal Meignan  wrote  of  Gen.  i.-x. :  "  We  must  not  look- 
in  them  so  much  for  a  precise  history  of  the  world  and 
the  race,  but  rather  for  the  religious  account  {/a  philo- 
sophie  rcligiaise)  of  that  history.  We  certainly  do  not 
deny  in  these  chapters  the  memories  of  historic  facts 
handed  down  by  tradition  ;  but  in  relating  them  the 
inspired  author  has  not  aimed  at  mathematical  pre- 
cision ;  his  main  intention  was  to  set  in  relief  the 
ethical  teaching  they  convey,"  Pere  Lagrange  would 
distinguish  in  all  such  traditional  stories  between  the 
"  core  "  of  truth  and  the  "  husk  "  of  details.^ 

Sources  and  Implicit  Quotation. — Another  interest- 
ing problem  comes  before  us  in  the  Jahwist  summary 
of  creation  (Gen.  ii.  4-7).  Ought  it  to  be  reconciled  with 
chapter  i. — the  Elohist  description, — or  left  as  a  distinct 
"source"  which  needs  no  reconciliation?  These  doub- 
lets introduce  a  long  series  occurring  at  intervals  through- 
out Scripture,  often  with  differences  of  detail  by  no 
means  insignificant.  The  practice  among  Christians 
was  to  undertake  a  tesselation  (a  Harmony)  into  which 
the  narratives  could  be  fitted.  Recent  authors  have  been 
disposed  to  fall  back  on  the  system  of  implicit  quota- 
tion. Bible  truth  is  respected,  says  Von  Hummelauer, 
so  long  as  we  maintain  that  the  writer  made  an  honest 
use  of  his  documents.  Eveiy  historian  depends  on 
sources  for  those  events  of  which  he  was  not  an  eye- 
witness ;  if  he  gives  the  text  as  he  finds  it  and  indicates 
the  reference  (for  examples,  read  Kings,  Chron.,  2 
Mace),  or,  anyhow,  is  manifestly  weaving  a  narrative 
by  compilation,  truth  for  him  signifies  agreement  with 
his  Pieces  justificatives.  Others  would  allege  that  by 
setting  down  what  he  finds  in  the  several  sources  and 
not  passing  judgment  on  them,  an  historian  implies 
that  he  leaves  the  question  of  their  accuracy  without 

'  Man.  Bibl.,  i.  533  scq. ;  Hummelauer,  in  Gtn.,  149;  Lagrange  in 
Revue  Bibl.,  365,  368  ;  Melgnan,  De  VEden  a  Moise,  102. 


252  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

deciding  it.^     That  writers  do  very  often  quote  in  this 
manner  is  abundantly  clear  ;  and  that  citation  does  not 
eo  ipso  give  consent   to  what  is  cited   every    lawyer 
would  grant.     Nothing,  also,  is   more  remarkable  in 
Scripture,  as  divines  have  pointed  out,  than  the  objec- 
tive way  in  which  the  narration  proceeds,  so  that  we 
constantly  feel  uncertain  how  the  inspired  penman  views 
his  facts  and  persons.     Phrases  are  taken  over  bodily 
from  earlier   documents  into   a   context   with   which 
they  do  not  agree  ;  but  we  are  left  to  our  own  reflection 
in  such  matters.     What  is  to  be  said  of  all  this  ?  - 

Late  Roman  Decisions. — A  Roman  decision,  care- 
fully worded,  deals  with  "silent  or  implicit  quotations" 
in  Scripture  texts.  Can  we  hold  that  they  do  not 
carry  approval  from  the  sacred  writer  ?  "  No,"  answers 
the  Biblical  Commission,  "except  in  the  case  where, 
maintaining  intact  the  sense  and  judgment  of  the 
Church,  it  is  proved  by  solid  arguments  that  (i)  the 
holy  writer  does  in  fact  rehearse  another's  words  or  ar- 
guments, and  (2)  does  not  approve  or  make  them  his 
own,  so  that  he  may  be  rightly  deemed  not  to  speak  in 
his  own  name."  The  answer,  it  has  been  said,  "  leaves 
ample  room  and  liberty  for  the  labour  of  scholars,  who 
consider  the  theory  of  implicit  citations  as  offering  the 
best  way  out  of  the  difficulties  against  Biblical  inerrancy. 
But  it  throws  upon  these  students  the  burden  of  proving, 
and  by  '  solid  arguments,'  that  the  sacred  writer  made 
use  of  the  work  of  others  (a  task  which,  for  many 
cases,  they  will  consider  easy  to  perform) ,  and  further- 
more (what  is  evidently  much  more  difficult)  that  the 
inspired  writer  does  not  make  the  borrowed  matter  his 
own."  ^  Another  Roman  reply  deals  in  like  manner 
with  "  parabolic  "  history  and  its  exegesis. 

'  Spinoza,  Tract.  Theol.-Polit.  ix.-x.,  illustrates  this  position  copi- 
ously. 

2  Hummelauer,  Exeg.  Inspir.,  2,  24,  59-65  ;  Bonaccorsi,  Quest.  Bib., 
log,  115-24;  Prat.,  Bib.  et  I'hist.,  56;  Lagrange,  Hist.  Crit.,  103. 

'^Neiv  York  Rev.,  July,  1905,  p.  109. 


VARIATIONS  AND  HARMONIES  253 

Cases  in  which  Applicable. — Under  such  cautions, 
therefore,  would  have  to  be  interpreted  the  double  story 
of  the  Flood,  which  presents  striking  analogies  and 
contrasts  with  the  famous  eleventh  book  of  the  Chal- 
d.tan  Epic,  itself  composed  in  the  reign  of  Hammurabi 
from  still  more  ancient  poems.  So  too  the  seeming 
divergencies  that  meet  us  when  we  compare  J.  E,  and 
P.  C,  throughout  their  course.  The  two  stories  of 
Joseph  and  his  brethren,  for  instance ;  the  "  triple  tra- 
dition "  in  J,  E.  P.  of  the  Exodus ;  the  different  strata 
of  laws  in  Pentateuch ;  the  variants  in  Judges  and 
Samuel ;  the  life  of  David  as  set  forth  by  Kings  and 
Chronicles.!  Again,  the  schemes  of  dates  and  gene- 
alogies in  both  Testaments.  Lastly,  the  intricate 
problems  of  Gospel  Harmony,  which  some  authorities 
would  decline  to  attempt,  on  the  score  that  we  do  not 
possess  adequate  materials,  may  be  affected  by  the 
demand  for  "  solid  arguments "  whenever  quotation  of 
sources  falling  outside  the  sphere  of  inerrancy  is  brought 
to  bear  upon  them.  In  any  case,  scholars  like  Pere 
Lagrange  and  Pere  Rose  would  remind  us  that  "  given 
a  variety  of  circumstances,  variety  in  detailed  accounts 
may  always  be  looked  for  ".  To  what  does  a  general 
pledge  his  word  when  he  embodies  such  accounts  in 
his  bulletin,  or  a  writer  of  history  when  he  prints 
them  side  by  side?  Evidently,  we  cannot  answer 
these  questions  except  after  studying  the  particular 
document ;  and  the  Roman  authority  makes  that  an 
imperative  duty  for  all  who  undertake  to  explain  the 
Scriptures." 

Oriental  Conceptions  of  History  and  Nature. — 
Here  must  be  registered  the  principle  of  "  kinds "  in 
Oriental  writing,  of  which  use  is  now  made  so  fre- 
quently.    In  some   degree   recognised   by   the   elder 

1  See  "  Flood,"  in  E.  Bi.  and  "  Exodus  "  ;  also  "  Ten  Plagues,"— 
Sec.  2;  and  the  other  subjects  in  their  places. 

^  Revue  Bib.,  Apr.  1905,  for  text  of  Roman  decree ;  P.  Rose,  Studies 
on  the  Gospels,  283. 


254  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

schools,  but  seldom  consistently  applied,  it  furnishes 
not  merely  the  distinction  between  prose  and  poetical 
books,  but  a  deeper  knowledge  of  what  history  im- 
ports for  an  Eastern, — how  it  ranges  from  bare  state- 
ments of  names  and  pedigrees  to  popular  tales  of 
heroes  and  chronicles  redacted  on  artificial  schemes 
of  dates,  with  a  purpose  going  beyond  the  simple 
phenomena,  but  never  a  scientific  one,  as  men  now 
call  it.  "  Whoso  would  form  a  sure  estimate,"  said  the 
Civilta  Cattolica,  "  of  the  kind  of  truth  which  pertains 
to  the  several  documents  of  the  Old  Testament  must 
think,  speak  and  judge  as  did  an  ancient  Hebrew."  ^ 
To  such  an  end  he  will  make  acquaintance  with  Jewish 
writings  of  every  period,  with  Mishnah  and  Talmud 
no  less  than  the  sacred  volume.  For  otherwise  he 
may  read  his  Bible  as  if  it  were  a  European,  nay,  and 
a  modern  book,  expecting  from  it  knowledge  that  its 
authors  never  had,  and  overlooking  their  genuine 
sense.  Oriental  poetry  in  Joshua's  address  to  the  sun 
did  not  contradict  Galileo;  the  numbers  assigned  to 
Israel  in  Egypt,  to  the  battles  of  Judah  and  Ephraim, 
or  to  the  return  from  the  Captivity,  are  not  our 
statistics ;  in  another  province,  all  the  wonders  related 
during  the  forty  years  in  the  Desert  make  no  necessary 
claim  to  be  miracles  as  we  define  them,  i.e.,  strictly 
supernatural  occurrences.  Our  conception  of  laws  of 
nature  was  unknown  to  the  children  of  Israel  ;  but  it 
does  not  follow  (quite  the  contrary)  that  their  belief 
in  a  present  ever-living  God  who  watched  over  their 
pilgrimage  was  false.  By  comparing  similar  passages, 
observes  Lagrange,  we  ascertain  that  the  redactors  did 
not  scruple  to  modify  their  original  text,  thereby  fitting 
it  to  shadow  forth  events  under  a  fresh  aspect, — "  a 
proof,"  he  concludes,  "that  they  composed  with  a  free 
hand,  not  laying  stress  on  what  we  should  term  his- 

^Civiltd  Cattolica,  Jan.   17,   1903,  220-21;    Comely,  Intr.   Gen., 
582-84. 


THE  ORIENTAL  MIND  255 

torical  accuracy  ".  Our  interpretation  must  be  level  to 
their  intentions ;  what  they  meant  to  say,  they  said. 
But  the  manner  of  affirmation  is  often  not  as  ours 
would  be  ;  and  sometimes  it  leaves  a  delicate  task  to 
the  critic' 

Thus,  then,  Canticles  and  Job,  Jonah  and  Judith, 
Esther,  Tobit,  Daniel,  are  each  true  Scripture,  not  to 
be  taxed  with  errors  in  their  presentation  (which  the 
Vulgate  substantially  contains  for  us),  but  their  kind 
of  truth  is  to  be  discovered  from  their  intrinsic  scope 
and  form  of  composition.  The  exegete  does  not  fall 
back  on  a  secret  divine  purpose,  or  pretend  to  argue  from 
a  knowledge  of  God's  mind  ;  he  proceeds  critically,  by 
anal}'sis,  logical  inference,  and  the  other  methods  which 
would  be  available  in  any  book  belonging  to  the  same 
category.  Literature,  unlike  science,  admits  of  endless 
degrees,  to  every  one  of  which  corresponds  its  own 
truth.  The  Fathers,  who  resolved  difficulties  by  their 
spiritual  sense,  or  by  allowing  for  the  appearances  of 
things  and  popular  opinion,  or  by  dwelling  on  the  gross 
and  carnal  fancy  of  the  tribe  which  Moses  had  to  in- 
struct, came  very  near  to  this  principle  of  "  kinds  "  or 
of  "  literary  intention  ".  It  now  completes,  chiefly  on 
the  historical  side,  a  differentiation  of  the  Bible  which 
had  already  been  introduced  from  Galileo's  time  on- 
ward, to  meet  the  just  demands  of  science. 

Horizon  and  Progress  in  the  Old  Testament. — We 
may  gather  up  its  implications,  which  are  numerous 
in  every  direction,  under  two  ideas.  The  Books  of 
Scripture  have  been  composed  in  view  of  an  horizon 
and  by  an  instinct  oi progress.  The  horizon  represents 
the  inevitable  human  limit ;  the  instinct  is  guided  on 
its  course  by  Divine  Wisdom.  Truth,  so  circumstanced, 
will  always  have  been  equal  to  the  occasion  which 
called  it  forth  but  never  exhaustive  of  the  future.     It 


'  Hummelauer  i«  Exod.  Levit.,  84  ;  in  Num.,  221  seq. ;  Lagrange, 
Juges,  pref.  37. 


256  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

stands  related  as  an  active  energy  to  the  people  for 
whom  it  was  meant ;  and  it  necessarily  required  ad- 
justment or  translation  when  the  period  in  which  it 
first  took  visible  form  had  come  to  an  end.  It  was 
absolute  as  opposed  to  falsehood  ;  as  teaching  it  was 
relative  and  conditioned.  Such  should  be  likewise  its 
interpretation,  for  the  commentator  who  expounds  the 
oracle  must  render  its  words  and  meaning  faithfully. 
"  If  that  first  Covenant  had  been  faultless,"  we  read  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (viii.  7),  "  then  should  no 
place  have  been  sought  for  the  second,"  but  "  in  that 
He  saith  a  new  Covenant,  He  hath  made  the  first  old  ". 
Yet  the  religion  of  Israel  came  directly  from  God ;  its 
prophets  and  their  writings  were  inspired  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  but  the  Law  had  only  "  a  shadow  of  the  good 
things  to  come,  and  not  the  very  image  of  the  things  ". 
Once  more  (xi.  39,  40),  "  These  all,  having  obtained  a 
good  report  through  faith,  received  not  the  promise, 
God  having  provided  some  better  thing  for  us,  that 
they  without  us  should  not  be  made  perfect ". 

Good  warrant,  accordingly,  we  have  from  Scripture 
itself  to  discern  the  shadow  as  not  being  the  substance, 
and  in  its  books  no  less  than  its  laws  to  distinguish  the 
moments  of  a  progress  wherein  that  which  was  more 
ancient  could  not  but  fall  short  of  the  final  stage. 

And  so  we  shall  rightly  deem  that  every  part  of  the 
Old  Testament  vi^as  subject  at  once  to  infirmity  and  to 
a  better  hope.  The  successive  manifestations  of  God 
which  His  names,  after  the  Eastern  fashion,  seal  and 
certify, — El,  Elohim,  El  Shaddai,  Jahweh, — were  so 
many  lights  growing  unto  the  perfect  day  when  He 
became  to  men's  thoughts  that  which  in  Himself 
He  had  ever  been,  the  Eternal  and  Infinite  Spirit 
transcending  space,  time,  and  motion,  whose  law  is 
mercy  and  truth.  Scripture  begins  with  a  theophany 
and  ends  with  an  Incarnation.  As  is  the  message, 
so  is  Its  record.  From  the  Hebrew  of  Genesis  to  the 
Greek  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  we  move  on  step  by  step, 


THE  BETTER  HOPE  257 

in  a  world  the  materials  of  which  may  be  history, 
legend,  adventure,  human  life  under  all  its  Eastern 
varieties,  but  where  the  governing  motive  that  shapes 
and  selects  from  them  is  the  Revelation  of  God  in 
Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.  The  very  difficulties  of  which 
we  are  sensible  come  from  the  higher  point  of  view, 
the  diviner  vision,  granted  us.  They  are  problems 
which  the  Scripture,  if  it  were  to  be  a  story  of  pro- 
gress, could  not  have  escaped.  It  has  created  them 
by.^going  on  to  perfection  ;  and  our  criticism  does  but 
prove  that  we  are  learning  the  lesson  which  it  enforces. 


17 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

CHRIST  IN  THE  BIBLE. 

Not  to  Destroy  but  to  Fulfil. — Science  unfolds  a 
formula  ;  history  postulates  a  germ.  The  Old  Testa- 
ment passes  into  the  New  by  advance  upon  all  its  lines, 
— the  Covenants  are  none  of  them  made  void,  for  each 
is  absorbed  into  the  final  one  that  more  than  realises 
its  promise.  Here  we  note  our  principle  of  continuity. 
Rendered  as  "  from  the  same  to  the  same "  in  a  me- 
chanical sense,  it  would  possess  no  life.  Religion  never 
can  be  the  "  permanent  identity  of  the  undifferentiated," 
for  God  reveals  Himself  in  the  world-movement  to  man- 
kind, which  is  educated  in  its  teachers  first,  and  then 
in  its  multitudes.^  Our  Lord  makes  the  great  truth 
known  (Matt.  v.  17),  "  Think  not  that  I  came  to  destroy 
the  law  and  the  prophets ;  I  came  not  to  destroy  but 
to  fulfil ".  The  Pauline  Epistles  show  us  the  method 
— there  is  a  spiritual  remnant,  true  Israelites,  by  whose 
preaching  the  Gentiles  are  grafted  "  contrary  to  nature 
into  the  good  olive  tree  "  ;  yet  there  is  a  fall  and  a  loss 
of  those  carnal  Jews  who  would  not  receive  the  Spirit 
(Rom.  xi.  5,  12,  17).  Hence,  in  Hebrews  (xii.  26,  27) 
we  are  taught  the  result  altogether,  "  Yet  once  more  I 
shake  not  the  earth  only,  but  also  heaven.  And  this 
word,  '  Yet  once  more,'  signifieth  the  removal  of  those 
things  that  are  shaken,  as  of  things  that  are  made,  that 
those  things  which  cannot  be  shaken  may  remain." 

'  Read  with  caution  Lessing,  The  Education  of  Humanity. 

258 


THE  LA  W  OF  SACRIFICE  259 

Causal  Ideas  are  more  than  Allegory — Instance, 
Sacrifice. — When  \vc  postulate  a  germ  in  history,  we 
transcend  the  loose  outward  setting  of  type  over 
against  antitype  which  led  the  Alexandrians  into 
mazes  without  issue.  By  allegorical  devices,  said  their 
opponents,  and  still  they  say,  anything  can  be  made 
of  anything.'  But  if  we  distinguish  in  our  Bible 
between  the  causal  idea  and  the  institutions  which 
successively  embodied  it,  we  can  allow  these  to  be 
shaken  while  that  remains  and  is  brought  to  perfection, 
so  far  as  earthly  conditions  permit.  Take,  for  instance, 
the  law  of  sacrifice.  Consider  it  in  the  Pentateuchal 
legislation,  then  in  the  Prophets,  afterwards  in  Christ's 
willing  acceptance  of  the  Cross ;  and  study  the  com- 
ments of  St.  Paul  and  St.  John.  First,  we  are  in  pres- 
ence of  a  minute  legal  code  (Exodus-Leviticus)  full 
of  burdens,  as  if  nothing  were  more  divine  than  the 
slaughter  and  burning  of  victims  at  the  altar.  Next 
we  hear  (Isa.  i.  1 1,  13),  "  To  what  purpose  is  the  multi- 
tude of  your  sacrifices  unto  Me  ?  saith  the  Lord.  I 
delight  not  in  the  blood  of  bullocks,  or  of  lambs,  or  of 
he-goats.  Bring  no  more  vain  oblations."  Then  Jesus 
declares  in  answer  to  James  and  John  (Matt.  xx.  28), 
"  The  Son  of  Man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but 
to  minister  and  to  give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many". 
After  that,  St.  Paul  (i  Cor.  xi.  23-26)  quoting  as  he 
had  received  the  words  of  our  Lord,  "  This  is  My  body 
which  is  broken  for  you  ;  this  cup  is  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  My  blood  "  ;  and  "  As  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread 
and  drink  the  cup,  ye  proclaim  the  Lord's  death  till  He 
come".  Finally,  in  St.  John  wc  read  (x.  11,  15),  "I 
am  the  Good  Shepherd,"  and  "  I  lay  down  My  life  for 
My  sheep  "  ;  as  St.  John  Baptist  had  already  signified, 
"  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sin 
of  the  world ".  The  great  Prayer  of  Consecration 
which  the  Evangelist  reports  (xvii.)  is  altogether  sacri- 

*  Farrar,  The  Bible,  71  ;  Hooker,  Eccl.  Pol.,  v.,  lix. 
17  * 


26o  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

ficial.  Thus  we  are  brought  round  again  to  the  treatise 
which  instructs  Hebrew  converts,  and  through  them  all 
succeeding  generations,  that  by  one  supreme  offering 
of  Himself  our  High  Priest  has  "  entered  once  into  the 
Holy  Place,  having  obtained  eternal  redemption  "  (Heb. 
ix.  12).  So  the  elder  law  passes  away,  but  in  the  hour 
of  its  fulfilment,  being  made  perfect,  not  made  void. 

The  ritual  passes,  the  spirit  abides  ;  and  self-sacrifice, 
as  the  only  method  of  attaining  true  life,  becomes  a 
universal  axiom  with  Jesus  for  its  instance  and  its  proof. 
Every  Christian  off"ers  his  own  body  and  senses  to  be 
the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  he  bears  the  cross, 
dies  on  Calvary,  rises  with  his  Redeemer.  This  is  not 
allegory  but  life,  which  brings  forth  after  its  kind. 
The  prophets'  denunciation  of  mere  outward  gifts,  with 
no  cleansing  of  the  heart,  finds  an  accomplishment 
when  Jerusalem,  the  altar  of  the  Lord,  falls  into  fiery 
ruin  ;  but  the  new  Covenant  which  they  yearned  to 
see  is  established  in  faith,  love,  and  holiness.  Events, 
under  the  guiding  Hand,  have  been  so  disposed  that, 
on  looking  back,  we  cannot  deny  their  connection  as 
framed  in  view  of  the  whole.  It  is  an  ascent,  pre- 
figured, marked  out  in  stages,  where  all  the  parts  in 
turn  serve  as  means  and  ends. 

Toleration  of  the  Imperfect. — But  the  correlative  of 
imperfection  is  toleration.  Our  Lord  teaches  that  too 
(Matt.  xix.  8) :  "  Moses  for  your  hardness  of  heart 
suffered  you  to  put  away  your  wives;  but  from  the 
beginning  it  was  not  so  ".  Divorce,  polygamy,  slavery, 
the  /ex  talionis,  hatred  of  enemies,  extermination  of 
the  heathen,  and  whatever  in  the  Old  Testament  seems, 
though  ethically  defective,  to  have  been  allowed  with- 
out censure,  we  thus  explain  to  ourselves.  The  inspired 
author  who  relates  such  things  in  the  mind  which  gave 
them  birth,  must  be  judged  according  to  his  lights,  for 
he  need  not  have  been  wiser  than  his  time.  When  he 
ascribes  to  Jahweh  the  commanding  of  terrible  deeds, 
we  should  remember  that  our  distinctions  between  a 


STAGES  OF  ETHICS  261 

divine  decree  ordering  and  a  permissive  degree  toler- 
ating were  but  dimly  present  to  the  Eastern  intellect. 
"  If  \\c  take  into  account,"  says  Coleridge,  "the  habit, 
universal  with  the  Hebrew  doctors,  of  referring  all 
excellent  or  extraordinary  things  to  the  great  First 
Cause  ;  .  .  .  and  if  we  further  reflect  that  the  distinc- 
tion between  the  providential  and  the  miraculous  did 
not  enter  into  their  forms  of  thinking, — at  all  events 
not  into  their  mode  of  conveying  their  thoughts, — the 
language  of  the  Jews  respecting  the  Hagiographa  will 
be  found  to  differ  little,  if  at  all,  from  that  of  religious 
persons  among  ourselves ",  These  words  are  applic- 
able to  difficulties  which  have  in  all  ages  troubled 
Christians  and  have  been  urged  by  the  sceptical. 
Sacred  history  recognises  what  we  term  second  causes, 
both  good  and  evil ;  it  may  attribute  the  same  action 
to  man,  to  Satan,  and  to  God,  as  in  David's  numbering 
of  the  people  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  i  ;  i  Chron,  xxi.  i),  thus 
bringing  into  pla}'  the  various  motives  and  personalities 
concerned.  But  all  things  at  last  it  traces  boldly  to 
the  one  overruling  Power  (Isa.  xlv.  i  ;  Amos  iii.  6). 
We  do  no  less  in  our  philosophy,  which  discriminates 
causes  by  a  deliberate  effort,  but  leaves  no  slightest 
accident  outside  the  sphere  of  Providence.  The  diffi- 
culty may  be  heightened  by  Hebrew  idiom  ;  it  cannot 
be  eliminated  from  our  thoughts  or  the  world's  course. 
Moral  Difficulties. — Even  when  we  fasten  on  the 
letter  of  those  praj'ers  which  are  directed  against 
enemies — whether  Israel's  or  the  Psalmist's  own — 
there  is  a  point  of  view  from  which  we  shall  better 
understand  them,  if  we  reflect  that  nothing  short  of  a 
Revelation  anticipated  by  centuries  would  have  made 
them  impossible.  The  divine  element  which  lies  at 
their  heart  is  an  appeal  to  justice,  rudely  conceived, 
with  violence  in  its  expression,  and  often  a  lack  of 
pity  in  executing  its  behests.^     Could  it  well  have  been 

'  C/.  Sophocles,  Trachlnia,  809;  V'wgi],  Mneid,  vi.,  529. 


262  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

otherwise?  Do  men  at  our  day,  though  Christians, 
never  call  in  times  of  war  upon  the  God  of  Battles  ? 
or,  if  we  saw  with  our  eyes  what  it  is  that  they  ask  in 
their  prayers  for  victory  over  the  foe,  should  we  think 
it  very  unlike  the  demand  of  a  revengeful  Israelite? 
To  him  ever}'  war  was  a  Holy  War ;  the  heathen  and 
their  gods  fought  against  his  God  ;  an  undeniable  fact, 
since  the  triumph  of  Chemosh  or  Hadad  would  have 
carried  with  it  the  disappearance  of  Hebraism.^  Doubt- 
less, we  shall  never  cease  to  feel  the  shock  when  we 
read  of  those  exterminating  forays  ;  and  it  is  our  duty 
to  spiritualise  the  hard  sayings  which  we  meet  in  the 
Psalms.  If  the  Law  had  "weak  and  beggarly  ele- 
ments "  (Gal.  iv.  9)  in  its  ritual,  so  had  it  in  its  tribal 
morality  ;  yet  we  have  not  quite  solved  the  problem  of 
Christian  States  and  Holy  Wars ;  nor  is  it  so  long  ago 
since  the  Turks  were  to  Europe  as  the  Amorites  to 
Israel,  a  religious  menace,  to  be  fought  with  prayers 
and  the  sword.  Yet  the  forgiveness  of  enemies,  which 
is  not  always  absent  from  the  Old  Testament,  remains 
our  standard  and  ideal.  In  like  manner  St.  Thomas 
would  have  us  learn  that  praise  of  such  heroines  as 
Jael  or  Judith  cannot  overthrow  the  laws  of  truth, 
hospitality,  or  womanly  reserve.  Something  in  them 
had  a  semblance  of  greatness  and  that  was  enough  for 
recognition  by  the  sacred  penman. 

Transient  Forms  in  the  New  Testament. — On  com- 
paring the  different  Gospels  and  the  periods  in  the  New 
Testament  of  Apostolic  preaching,  we  note  a  similar 
process ;  transient  forms  are  used  as  vehicles  to  be 
discarded — the  synagogue  as  a  school  where  Christ 
and  His  first  followers  taught ;  the  seventy-two  dis- 
ciples ;  the  speaking  with  tongues,  prophesyings,  and 
other  extempore  utterances  ;  the  development  from  the 
Twelve  to  deacons,  presbyters,  bishops ;  the  reign  or 


^  In  the  inscription  on  Moabite  Stone,  Chemosh  is  named  as  leader 
against  Israel. 


OUR  LORD'S  REVELATION  263 

kingdom  of  God  turning  out  to  be  the  Church  of  the 
faithful.  In  that  expectation  of  the  Parousia  which  all 
believers  shared,  we  see  again  the  horizon,  Messianic  as 
with  Isaiah,  but  now  extended  to  the  Second  Advent, 
receding  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  break  up  of 
the  Roman  Empire.  We  need  not  dwell  upon  Millen- 
arian  dreams.  Every  chief  turning  point  did,  in  truth, 
witness  a  fulfilment  of  what  was  promised  ;  the  Christian 
Idea  took  to  itself  its  great  power  and  reigned  ;  but  the 
letter  found  its  realisation  in  ways  not  contemplated. 
Pentecost  began  the  series^  never  to  be  finished  till  the 
consummation  of  the  age,  \yhereby  Christ  comes  back, 
but  in  the  spirit,  to  His  disciples  and  leads  them  on 
towards  the  high  mark  of  their  calling. 

Our  Lord  Revealed  Himself  by  dejfrees. — But  the 
most  instructive  example  of  a  continuity  which  prevails 
throughout  the  Christian  system,  while  it  determines  the 
full  meaning  that  we  seek  in  Scripture,  is  our  Lord's 
revelation  of  Himself.  Here,  too,  as  in  the  previous 
Covenant,  w-e  track  the  divine  process  by  the  Names 
w4iich  are  set  upon  it.  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  human, 
the  historical  starting-point.  We  learn  that  this  Jesus 
calls  Himself  the  Son  of  Man ;  yet  He  makes  the 
Father  known  and  is  truly  His  Son.  St.  Peter  con- 
fesses it,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God  ".  In  accordance  with  prophecy  He  is  acclaimed 
the  Son  of  David  by  the  multitude ;  yet  again,  for 
taking  on  Him  the  state  and  dignity  of  Messiah  He 
is  by  the  Sanhedrin  sentenced  to  death.  He  dies, 
and  still  the  Revelation  gathers  light.  It  inspires 
the  Letters  of  St.  Paul  and  grows  out  of  them  by  a 
development  which  we  follow  from  Romans  to  Philip- 
pians,  into  Ephesians  and  Colossians,  until  we  ask  if 
anything  more  can  be  affirmed  than  the  Apostle  has 
laid  down  in  language  that  is  ever  adding  to  its  dog- 
matic force.  The  Synoptists  have  already  convinced 
us  that  Jesus  was  certainly  true  Man.  But  when  we 
turn  to  them  again  at  this  stage,  we  discover  that 


264  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

without  arrogance  or  impetuosity  the  gentle  Teacher 
had  claimed  such  privileges  of  wisdom,  power,  holi- 
ness, such  freedom  from  the  sins  and  passions  of  the 
race,  that  He  appears  to  be  the  very  Image  of  the 
Father  whom  He  reveals.  Those  Gospels  yield  the 
essence  of  all  genuine  biographical  writings  about  Him, 
which  had  preceded  their  publication.  And  they  con- 
firm on  the  solid  ground  of  a  testimony  to  facts,  wit- 
nessed by  the  Primitive  Church,  that  deeper  doctrine  of 
St.  Paul.i 

St.  John  as  Central  Writer  of  New  Testament. — 
Now  comes  the  Fourth  Gospel,  to  supplement  and  seal 
up  the  evidence.  It  adds,  by  Apostolic  authority,  much 
formal  statement,  but  on  a  foundation  laid  in  the  simple 
story  of  Christ's  life — which  had  been  set  forth  beyond 
cavil  and  made  sure  through  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
the  Parables,  the  Logia,  that  no  uninspired  pen  could 
counterfeit.  St.  John  is  the  centre  to  which  the  Synop- 
tists  and  St.  Paul  converge.  He  crowns  the  one  group 
of  writings,  he  sustains  the  other.  He  furnishes  the 
link  which  binds  our  Lord  and  the  Church  together, 
— and  thus  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  typical  and  a  wed- 
ding song  for  the  New  Covenant  as  the  Canticle  of 
Solomon  was  for  Israel.  He  mediates  between  the  ex- 
tremes of  Ebionite  and  Gnostic.  He  is  last  of  Apostles 
and  first  of  divines.  Maintaining  that  the  Logos  be- 
came flesh,  this  great  Evangelist  interprets  Jesus  to 
all  time,  and  by  so  doing  completes  the  Scriptures  that 
"  bear  witness "  to  Him.  Wonderful  how  repeatedly 
that  word  falls  upon  the  page  !  The  manhood,  but  also 
the  Godhead  ;  "  That  which  was  from  the  beginning, 
that  which  we  have  heard,  that  which  we  have  seen  with 
our  eyes,  that  which  we  beheld  and  our  hands  handled, 

^  On  "  Son  of  Man  "  see  art.  in  Hastings,  D.  B.  For  what  follows, 
consult  arts,  on  "Gospel  of  St.  John"  and  "Jesus  Christ".  Also, 
P.  Rose,  Studies  on  the  Gospels,  150-206 ;  Bonaccorsi,  Harnack  e 
Loisy  ;  V.  Hiigel,  The  Church  and  the  Bible ;  Schanz,  Comment,  on  the 
Four  Gospels  (Germ.). 


MESSIAH— LOGOS  265 

concerning  the  Word  of  life — and  the  life  was  mani- 
fested, and  we  have  seen  and  bear  witness"  (i  John 
i.  I,  2).  Under  stress  of  the  conviction  which  fills 
him,  the  beloved  Disciple  breaks  down  in  his  speech  ; 
but  in  its  very  stammerings  it  is  all  the  more  persuasive. 

Jesus,  Messiah  and  Logos. — For  St.  John  knows 
that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  and  that  He  is  the  Logos — 
the  wisdom  and  the  power  of  God.  All  Scripture  is 
illuminated  by  that  heavenly  ray.  It  shines  in  dark 
places,  brings  out  their  evil,  discovers  their  good.  The 
Ebionite  knew  Christ  according  to  the  flesh ;  but  there 
his  knowledge  ended.  The  Gnostic  would  never  own 
that  Jesus  Christ  was  come  in  the  flesh ;  he  dissolved 
Jesus  into  principalities  and  powers,  until  on  one  side 
was  the  Unknowable — the  Deep  of  Silence — on  the 
other  a  phantom  crucified  in  appearance  and  no  true 
man.  These  divergencies  of  error  the  Fourth  Gospel 
cuts  up  by  the  roots.  And  m  so  doing,  it  gives  us  the 
norm,  secure  and  unfailing,  upon  which  we  must  inter- ~ 
pret  the  whole  Bible,  if  we  would  not  go  astray.  To 
"  dissolve  Jesus  "  and  to  break  the  Scriptures  into  frag- 
ments, opposed  or  irreconcilable,  are  manifestations  of 
the  same  false  method.  To  see  in  Christ  our  Lord  a 
mere  Galilean  peasant  is  the  natural  consequence  of 
reducing  the  Old  Testament  to  a  human  record,  not 
inspired  and  not  miraculous.  The  offence  of  the  cross 
bears  a  strange  likeness  to  the  scandal  which  many 
have  made  for  themselves  out  of  words  they  had  not 
rightly  construed,  or  a  toleration  of  the  imperfect  which 
they  judged  unbecoming  in  the  Supreme.  To  such  it 
may  be  answered,  "  I  heard  a  voice  saying,  Shall  mortal 
man  be  more  just  than  God  ?  Shall  a  man  be  more 
pure  than  his  Maker?  Behold,  He  put  no  trust  in  His 
servants ;  and  His  angels  He  charged  with  folly  ;  how 
much  less  in  them  that  dwell  in  houses  of  clay,  whose 
foundation  is  in  the  dust!"  (Job  iv.  17-19). 

Theology    Established,  on   Scripture. — From    the 
Prophets,  interpreting  the  Law  by  a  God-given  revela- 


266  THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE 

tion,  Israel  through  synagogue  and  priesthood  re- 
ceived its  Old  Testament.  From  the  Apostles  its 
larger  Canon  passed  on  to  the  Church ;  and  no 
book  which  now  forms  part  of  the  Bible  was  finally 
acknowledged  except  in  deference  to  their  judgment, 
as  the  Christian  tradition  apprehended  it.  With 
our  sacred  books  their  religious  meaning  was  handed 
down.  In  the  text  itself,  devoutly  preserved,  though 
much  of  it  seemed  dark  and  something  here  and  there 
difficult,  a  provision  was  made  for  better  understanding 
when  the  world  should  be  prepared.  So  long  as  every 
doubtful  passage  was  referred  to  the  judgment-seat  of 
Christ,  an  imperfect  instrument  like  allegory  could  do 
no  lasting  harm.  The  consent  of  Fathers  is  by  no 
means  a  fiction.  Amid  ceaseless  warfare  those  teachers 
wrought  the  lines  upon  which  our  creed  has  been  elicited 
from  the  words  of  Scripture  and  the  conscience  of  the 
faithful,  gathered  together  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  Beauti- 
ful and  majestic  as  a  theory,  binding  all  ages  in  one, 
never  to  be  exhausted  by  meditation,  that  Creed 
has  also  proved  itself  a  doctrine  of  life,  apart  from 
which  there  is  no  other  wherein  to  put  our  trust. 
Israel  waits  for  the  Messiah ;  infidelity  does  not 
comprehend  Him  ;  the  Church  believes  and  adores. 
The  Sum  is  This. — Two  quotations  may  sum  up  the 
whole  matter.  The  first  from  St.  Paul  to  Timothy 
(2,  iii.  14,  16) :  "  Abide  thou  in  the  things  which  thou 
hast  learned  and  hast  been  assured  of,  knowing  of 
whom  thou  hast  learned  them.  .  .  .  Every  Scripture 
inspired  of  God  is  also  profitable  for  reproof,  for 
correction,  for  instruction  which  is  in  righteousness." 
The  second  from  St.  John's  Gospel  (xx.  30,  31): 
"  Many  other  signs  did  Jesus  in  the  presence  of  the 
disciples  which  are  not  written  in  this  book  ;  but  these 
are  written  that  ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  ye  may 
have  life  in  His  Name". 

i 


S 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
Non-Catholic  authors  are  indicated  by  an  asterisk. 

GENERAL. 

Bihlia  Sacra  Vulgatce  Editionis ;  Critical  Recension  (incomplete) 
by  *  Wordsworth. 

Biblia  Sacra  sec.  versionem  LXX.,  *  Tischendorf,  Rome,  1872.  Crit- 
ical Edition  by  *  vSwete,  Cambridge. 

Biblia  Sacra  Jvxta  Massoreiicos,  Ordinary  Edition,  Theile ;  Critical 
(incomplete),  *S.  Baer,  *  Ginsburg. 

Biblia  Hebraica,  ed.*R.  Kittel,  Leipzig,  1905-8. 

Novum  Tcstamcntum  Greece,  *  Tischendorf. 

The  New  Testament  in  Greek,  *Westcott  and  Hort. 

Novum  Tcstamentum,  Greece  et  Latinc ;  Criticeedidit  M.  Hetzenauer, 
O.C. 

Holy  Bible,  Douay  and  Rheims, 

*  The  Authorised  Version  of  King  James,  1611. 

*  The  Revised  Version,  Old  Testament,  1884;  New  Testament,  1881. 
CursHS  ScriptttrcE  Saerce,  Edd.  PP.  Knabenbauer,  v,  Hummelauer, 

Cornely,  Gietmann,  S.J. 

Introductio  Historica  ct  Critica,  Cornely,  S.J.,  4  vols.,  and  com- 
pendium, I  vol. 

Manuel  Bibliquc  (M.  B.),  Vigouroux,  Bacuez. 

Catholic  Dictionary,  Addis,  Arnold,  and  Scannell. 

Dictionnaire  de  la  Bible,  Vigouroux. 

*  Encycloptedia  Biblica  (E.  Bi.),  Cheyne  and  Black. 

*  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  (D.  B.),  Hastings. 

*  The  ycwish  Encyclopcedia. 

*  Real-Encyclopddie  des  Judentums,  Hamburger. 

*  Clarke's  Antc-Nicene  Library. 

The  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  vols.  L,  IL,  IH.,  New  York,  1907-8. 

SPECIAL. 

*  Abbott,  E.  A.    Death  and  Miracles  of  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury 

(parallel  to  criticism  of  Four  Gospels). 

*  Abbott,  T.   K.    Essays  on  Orig.   Texts  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 

ments ;  Commentary  on  Ephrsians  and  Colossians. 
Aberle,  M.  v.  Einleitung  in  d.  Offenbaning  S.  fohan. 

*  Addis,  W.  E.  Documents  (f  the  Hcxatcuch. 

267 


268  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

*  Bacon,  B.  W.  The  Genesis  of  Genesis  ;  Triple  Tradition  of  Exodus. 
Bade,  J.  Christologie  des  alien  Testamentes ;  Die  Kleinen  Propheten. 

*  Barnes,  W.  E.  The  Books  of  Chronicles. 

Barnes,  Mgr.  A.  S.  Articles  on  the  Gospels,  in  tht  Monthly  Review, 

1904,  and  the  Journal  of  Theol.  Studies,  1905. 
Batiffol,  P.  Six  Le(;ons  sur  Les  Evangiles. 
Beelen,  T.  H.  Comment,  in  Act.  App'. ;  In  Rom. ;  In  Philipb. ;  Book 

of  Psalms  (Flemish).  ^ 

Bickell,  G.  Dichtungen  d.  Hebrder  ;  Das  Biich  Job  ;  Der  Predieer ; 

Das  Buch  der  Spruche. 
Biesen,  Van  den  C,     "  Authors  and  Composition  of  the  Hexateuch," 

Dublin  Review,  Oct.,  1892,  Jan.,  1893;  Urig.  of  LXX.;  ibidem, 

July,  1895. 

*  Bigg,  C.  Epistles  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Jude. 

*  Bissell,  E.  C.   The  Apocrypha  ;  The  Pentateuch. 

*  Bleek-Wellhausen,  Einleitung  in  das  A.  T. 
Boissonot,  H.  Le  Cardinal  Meignan. 

Bonaccorsi,  G.  Harnack  e  Loisy  :  I  Tre  Primi  Vangeli ;  Questioni 

Bibliche. 
Breen,  A.  E.  Gen.  and  Crit.  Introduction  to  Holy  Scripture. 

*  Briggs,  C.  A.    The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch. 
Broglie,  A.  P.  Questions  Bibliques ;  Religion  et  Critique. 
Brucker,  J.  Questions  Actuelles  d'Ecriture  Sainte. 

*  Buhl,  F.   Canon  and  Text  of  the  Old  Test.,  Eng.  Tr. 

*  Bullen,  G.  Catalogue  of  Loan  Collection  (Caxton  Celebration — for 

earliest  printed  Bibles). 

Calmes,  T.  L'Evangile  de  St.  Jean. 

*  Carpenter,  J.  E.   The  Hexateuch. 

*  Cave,  A.  Introduction  to  Theology  and  Its  Literature. 

*  Charles,  R.  H.  The  Book  of  Enoch. 

Chauvin,  C.    Lemons    d' Introduction  aux  Ecritures ;    L'inspiration 
d'apres  Venseignetnent  traditionnel. 

*  Cheyne,  T.  K.   Founders  of  Old  Test.  Criticism ;    The  Prophecies 

of  Isaiah  ;  and  see  Encyc.  Biblica. 
Ciasca,  Card.  Tatiani  Diatessaron  (Arabic,  Latin,  Eng.  Tr.). 
Clifford,  W.,  Bishop.  "  The  Days  of  Creation,"  in  the  Dublin  Review, 

April,  1881,  and  April,  1883. 
Coleridge,  H.  J.  The  Life  of  our  Life. 
Condamin.  Le  Livre  d  Isdie. 
Corluy,    J.    Spicilegium    Dogmatico-Biblicum  ;    Commentarius    in 

Joan  ;  L'inspiration  Divine  des  SS.  Ecritures. 
Cornely,   R.    Introductio  Historica   et   Critica   in   Utriusque   Test. 

libros  ;  Generalis  et  Specialis. 

*  Cornill,  C.  H.  Einleitung  in  dns  alte  Testament ;  Das  Buch  des  Pro- 

pheten Ezechiel ;  History  of  the  People  of  Israel,  Eng.  Tr. 

*  Cotton,  H.  Rhemes  and  Douay  (Versions  of  H.  Scripture). 

*  Cowper,  B.  H.  Apocryphal  Gospels. 
Crellier.  Les  Actes  des  Apotres. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  269 

Dalman,  G.  Thr  Words  of  Jesus  in  Light  of  Post-Bihlical  Jewish 
W'ritins^s  and  Aramaic  Latif^.,  Eng.  Tr. 
•Davidson 'a.  B.    Theology  of  the  Old  Test.;  Old  Test.  Prophecy; 

Commentaries  on  Job,  Exekicl,  etc. 
'  Davidson,  S.  Canon  of  the  Bible. 

*  Davis,  J.  D.  Genesis  and  Semitic  Tradition. 
Dausch,  P.  Die  Schriftsinspiration. 

*  Deane,  VV.  J.  Pseudepigrapha- Apocryphal  Sacred  IVritings. 

*  Delitzsch,  Franz.  Commentaries  on  Genesis  and  Isaiah,  Eng.  Tr, 

*  Delitzsch,  Friedr.  Babel  and  Bible,  Eng.  Tr. 
Denzinger.  Enchiridion  Symbolorum  et  Defiuitionum. 
Didon,  P.  Life  of  Our  Lord,  Eng.  Tr. 

*  Dillmann,  A.  Genesis,  Eng.  Tr. ;  other  books  of  Pentateuch  in  Ger- 

man. 
Dixon,  Abp.  Gen.  Introduction  to  the  H.  Scriptures. 

*  Driver,  S.  R.  Introd.  to  Literature  of  the  Old  Test. ;  Commentary  on 

Dcut':ronomy  ;  Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text  0/ Samuel. 
Duval,  R.  La  Littcrature  Syriaque. 

*  Edersheim,  A.  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah  (1886). 
•Ewald,  H.  Hist,  of  the  People  of  Israel,  Eng.  Tr.;  Die  Dichter  d. 

alien  Bundes ;  Revelation,  Its  Nature  and  Record,  Eng.  Tr. 

*  Fairweather,  W.  First  Book  of  Maccabees  ;  i,  2  Mace,  in  Hastings, 

D.  B. 

*  Farrar,  F.   W.    History  of  Interpretation  ;    Minor  Prophets;    The 

Bible  ;  Life  of  Christ ;  Life  and  Work  of  St.  Paul. 
Fillion,  L.  C.  Les  Evangiles  ;  Synopsis  Evangclica ;  Les  Psaumes. 
Flockner,   The  Author  of  Laiiirntations  (Germsin). 
Fonck,  L.  Dcr  Kampf  um  die  Wahrheit  der  h.  Schrift  seit  25  Jahren. 
Fontaine,  J.  De  I' Apologetiq^ic  au  XI X^  Siccle. 
Fouard,  C.  The  Christ  the  Son  of  God;  St.  Peter;  St.  Paul;  The 

Last  Years  of  St.  Paul,  Eng.  Trs. 
Fritzsche,  O.  F.  Handbuch  zu.  d.  Apocryphen. 

Gasquet,  F.  A.   The  Old  English  Bible. 

*  Geden  and  Mouiton.  A  Concordance  to  the  Greek  Testament. 
Gigot,    F.   E.    Gen.   Introd.    to   Study   of  H.   Scripture;    Special 

Introd.  to  Hist.  Books  ;  Outlines  of  Jeivish  History. 

*  Ginsburg,  Massorctico — Critical  Edition  of  Hebrew  Bible ;  The  Kab- 

balah ;  The  Song  of  Songs. 

*  Graetz,  H.  History  of  the  Jews,  vol.  i.,  Eng.  Tr. 
•Green,  W.  H.  Higher  Criticism  of  Pent.;  Hebrew  Feasts. 

Grimm,  I.  Einheit  d.  Evangelien  ;  Lebcn  Jcsu. 

*  Gunkel,   H.  Genesis  ubersettt  n.    erkldrt  ;    Schopfung   und   Chans. 

Ausgewdhlte  Psalmen  ;  Zum  religionsgeschichtliche  Verstdnditiss 
des  N.  T. 
Gutberlet,  C.  Book  of  Wisdom  (German). 

*  Hammond.  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Test. 
Haneberg.  Gcsch.  d.  Offenbarung. 

*  Harnack,  A.  History  of  Dogma,  Eng.  Tr. ;  Hist,  of  Old  Christian 

Literature,  etc. 


2/0  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

*  Harper,  H.  A.  The  Bible  and  Modern  Discoveries. 
Hetzenauer,  M.   Wesen  und  Principien  der  Bibelkritik. 

*  Hill,  H.   Tatian's  Diatessaron. 

*  Hilprecht,  H.  V.  Excavations  in  Assyria  and  Babylonia. 
Hoberg,  G.  Die  Genesis. 

Hogan,  J.  Clerical  Studies. 

*  Hommel,  Fr.  Ancient  Hebrew  Tradition. 

Hoonacker,  A.  van.  "  Notes  sur  I'Hist.  de  la  Restauration  Juive," 

Rev.  Bibliqne,  Jan.,  Apr.,  igoi. 
Hiigel,  F.  von.  Documents  oj  the  Hexateuch  ;  "  The  Church  and  the 

Bible,"  in  Dublin  Rev.,  Oct.,  i8g4,  April,  1895. 
Hundhausen,  L.  Die  beiden  Pontijicalschreiben  d.  Apost.  Petrus. 
Hummelauer,  F.  von.  Der  Bibl.  Schopfungsbericht ;  Nochmals  der 

Bibl.       Schopftmgsbericht ;    Exegetisches    z.   Inspiratio)ts/rage  ; 

Commentarius  in  Genesim,  etc.  {Ctirsus  Scrip.  Sacr.). 

Jacquier,  E.  Histoire  des  Livres  du  Nonv.  Test. 

*  Jastrow,  M.     Diet,  of  Targumim,   Talmud  Babli,  and  Midrashim 

(German) ;  Religion  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria;  see  also  in  Hast- 
ings, D.  B. 

*  Johns,  C.  H.  Babyl.  Assyrian  Laws,  Contracts  and  Letters. 

Kaulen,  F.  Einleitung  in  Alt.  u.  Neu.  Test. ;  Liber  yonce,  etc. 

*  Kautzsch,  E.  Die  H.  Schrift  des  Alt.  Test.;  Die  Apocryphen ;  Reli- 

gion of  Israel  (in  Hastings,  D.  B.). 

*  Keil,  K.  F.  und  Delitzsch,  Franz.  Commentaries  on  Old  Test.,  Eng. 

Tr. 
— Kenrick,  P.,  Archbishop.  Commentary  on  the  Entire  Bible. 

*  Kenyon,  F.  G.  The  Bible  and  the  Manuscripts. 
Keppler,  P.  Das  J ohannes-Evangelium. 

*  King,  L.  W.  The  Seven  Tablets  of  Creation  ;  Babylonian  Religion 

and  Mythology. 

*  Kirkpatrick,  A.  F.  The  Divine  Library  of  the  Old  Test. ;  yeremiah. 

*  Kittel,  R.  History  of  the  Hebrews,  Eng.  Tr. 
Klasen,  F.  Die  A.  T.  Weisheit. 

Krementz,  P.,  Archbishop.  Die  Offcnbarnng  des  H.  yoannes. 

*  Kuenen,  A.  The  Hexateuch ;  The  Worship  of  Israel ;  The  Prophets 

and  Prophecy  in  Israel,  Eng.  Tr. 

Lagrange,  M.  J.  Historical  Criticism  and  the  Old  Testament,  Eng. 

Tr. ;  Le  Livre  des  yuges ;  Etudes  sur  les  Religions  Semitiques, 

and  articles  in  the  Revue  Bibliqne. 
Lambert,  E.  Le  Deluge  Mosaique. 
Le  Camus,  E.  Vie  de  N.  Seigneur  ySsus  Christ. 

*  Lechler,  G.  V.  The  Apostolic  and  Post-Apostolic  Times,  Eng.  Tr. 
Le  Hir,  A.  M.  Etudes  Bibliques. 

Lesetre,  H.  Introduction  aux  Ecritures  Saintcs ;  Les  Psaumes,  les 
Proverbes,  etc. 
—  L^vesque,  E.  La  Nature  de  Vhispiration,  Eng.  Tr. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  27 1 

*  Lightfoot,  J.  B.   The  Apostolic  Fatltcrs,St.  Clement,  St.  Ignatius, 

St.  Polycarp  ;  Answer  to  Supernatural  Religion. 
Loisy,  A.  Le  Canon  dc  V Ancien  Testament ;  Le  Canon  du  Nouveau 
Testament;  Hist.  Crit.  du  Texte  ct  des  Versions  dc  V Ancien 
Testament ;  Les  Erangiks  Synoptiqucs  ;  Le  Livrc  de  Job  traduit 
de  Vhebreu ;  Les  Mythes  Babylomens ;  see  also  V Enseigncmcnt 
Biblique. 

Maas,  G.  Christ  in  Type  and  Prophecy  ;  On  St.  Matthew. 
Margival,    H.    Richard  Simon   et  la    Critique  biblique  an    XVII' 
Siecle. 

*  Margoliouth,  D.  S.  The  Place  of  Ecclesiasticus ;   The  Origin  of  the 

Hebrew  of  Ecclus. 
Martin,  J.   P.  Introduction  a   la  Critique  Generale  de  I' A.  Testa- 
ment ;  De  VOrigine  du  Pentateuque. 

*  Marx.  Traditio  Rabbinorum  de  Vet.  Testamenti  ordine  ct  originc. 

*  McCurdv,  J.  F.  History,  Prophecy,  and  the  Monuments. 
Mclntyr'e,  J.  The  Gospel  of  St.  John. 

Meignan,  Cardinal.  U Ancien  Testament  dans  ses  rapports  avec  le 
Nouveau  et  la  Critique  modcrne,  seven  vols. ;  Le  Monde  et 
rHommc  Primitif  scion  la  Bible. 

*  Mielziner,  M.  Introduction  to  the  Talmud. 

*  Moore,  G.  F.  The  Book  of  Judges  ;  and  see  E.  Bi. 
Morgan,  de,  and  V.  Scheil.  La  Delegation  en  Perse. 

Motais,  A.  Le  Deluge  biblique  devant  lafoi,  etc. ;  Moise,  la  science, 
et  Vexeglse ;  Origine  du  Monde  d'apris  la  tradition. 

*  Moulton,  W.  F.  History  of  the  English  Bible. 

Netteler.  Commentaries  on  Ezckiel,  Chronicles,  Esdras,  Esther, 
Isaiah,  Minor  Prophets  (German). 

*  Neubauer,  A.   The  Book  of  Tobit  (Chaldee  Text). 

Newman,  J.  H. ,  Cardinal.  Development  of  Christian  Doctrine; 
Discussions  and  Arguments  (Tract  85) ;  Tracts  Theological  and 
Ecclesiastical ;  The  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture. 

Nickes.  De  Libro  Judith  ;  De  Libro  Esther. 

*  Orelli,  C.  The  Twelve  Minor  Prophets,  Eng.  Tr. 

*  Paley,  W.  Horce  PaulincE,  edited  by  Howson. 
Palmieri,  D.  De  Veritate  Libri  Judith. 

Patrizi,  F.  X.  Dc  Evangeliis  ;  In  Actus  Apostolorum  ,  Cento  Salmi. 

Rampf,  M.  F.  Der  Brief  Judae  d.  Apost. 
'  Ramsay,  W.  M.  St.  Paul  the  Traveller;  also  "  Religion  of  Greece," 
"  Roads  and  Travel "  in  N.  T.  in  Hastings,  D.  B. 
Rault,  H.  Cours  elementaire  d'Ecriture  Sainte. 

*  Reich,  E.  The  Failure  of  the  Higher  Criticism. 
Reusch,  F.  H.  Nature  and  Bible,  Eng.  Tr. 

*  Reuss,  E.  History  of  the  Scriptures,  The  New  Test.,  Eng.  Tr. ,  Das 

A.  T.  (German). 
Rickaby,  J.  Notes  on  St.  Paul,— Corinthians,  Galatians,  Romans. 


2/2  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

*  Robertson,  J.  Book  by  Book. 

Rohling,  E.  Commentaries  on  Daniel  and  Proverbs  (German). 
Rose,  V.  Studies  on  the  Gospels,  Eng.  Tr. 

*  Ryle,   H.   E.    Essay  on   Canon  of  the  Old   Testament ;  Psalms  oj 

Solomon  ;  Early  Narratives  of  Genesis . 

*  Salmon,  G.  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament. 

*  Sanday,    W.    Lectures   on   Inspiration;  the   Oracles   of  God;    the 

Epistle  to  the  Romans  ;  see  also  in  Hastings,  D.  B.,  and  Author- 
ised Eng.  Version  (Queen's  Printer's  Bible). 

*  Sayce,  A.    H.    The  Higher    Criticism  and  the   Monuments  (1895); 

Patriarchal  Palestine ;  Ancient  Empires  of  the  East ;  The  Religion 
of  the  Ancient  Babylonians ;  The  Religion  of  Ancient  Egypt,  etc. 
See  Hastings,  D.  B. 
Schanz,  P.  A  Christian  Apology,  Eng.  Tr, ;  Commentaries  on  the 
Four  Gospels  (German). 
*Schechter,  S.  Article  "  Talmud  "  in  Hastings,  D.  B. 
Schegg,  P.  Gesch.  der  Letzen  Propheten ;  Die  Evangelien  iibersetzt 
u.  erkldrt. 

*  Schiffer,  S.  Das  Bitch  Koheleth  nach  d.  Talmud. 

Scholz,  A.  Commentaries  on  Joel,  Jeremiah,  Hosea,  etc.  (German). 

*  Schrader,  E.    The  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  and  the  Old  Test.,  Eng.  Tr. 

(1885-88),  Third  Edition,  German  (1902-3),  by  Winckler. 

*  Schurer,  E.  History  of  the  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Christ,  Eng. 

Tr. 

*  Scrivener,  F.  H.  Introduction  to  Textual  Criticism  of  the  New  Test. 
Simon,   R,  Histoire  Critique  du  Vieux  Test. ;  du  Texte  du  Nouv. 

Test. ;  des  Commcntateurs  du  Nouv.  Test. ;  des  Versions  du  Nouv. 
Test. 

*  Smith,  H.  P.  The  Books  of  Samuel. 

Smith,  Sydney  F.  Commentary  on  St.  Matthew,  etc. 
Smith,  W.,  Archbishop.  The  Pentateuch  or  Book  of  Moses. 
♦Smith,  W.  Robertson.    The  Prophets  of  Israel ;   The  Old  Test,  in 

Jewish  Church  (1892) ;    Religion  of  the  Semites.      See  also  E. 

Britt.  and  E.  Bi. 

*  Spinoza,  B.  Tractatus  Theologico-Politicus,  Tauchnitz  edition  (1846). 

*  Stalker,  J.  Life  of  St.  Paul. 

Steenkiste,  van.  Latin  Commentaries,  In  Psalmos,  Evang.  S.  Matt, ; 
S.  Pauli  Epistolas ;  Catholicas  Epistolas. 

*  Strack,  H.  L.  Prolegomena  Critica  in  Vet.  Test. ;  Einleitung  in  d. 

Thalmiid. 

*  Swete,  H.  B.  The  Old  Test,  in  Greek  (the  LXX.). 

Thalhofer,  V.  Erkldrung  d.  Psalmen. 
Theiner,  A.  Acta  Genuina  Cone.  Tridentini. 

*  Tischendorf,  C.  Novum  Testamentum  Greece ;  The  Septnagint  (1872). 
Trochon,  G.  Les  Petits  Prophetes. 

Ubaldi,  U.  Introd.  in  S.  Scripturam, 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  273 

Vacant,  J.  La  Constitution  Dei  Filitts. 
—-  Vaughan,  J.  S.   Coiiccrnin/^  the  Holy  Bible. 

Vercellone,  C.  Varice  Lectiones  Editioiiis  Vul^nttr. 
Vigouroux  and  Bacuez.  Manuel  Biblique  (1901). 
Vigouroux,  F.   La  Bible  et  les   Decouvcrtes  Moderucs  (i8g6);    Les 
Livres  Saints  et  la  Critique  Rotionalistc  (iSgi) ;  La  Bible  Poly- 
glotte.     See  also  Diet,  de  la  Bible. 

Ward,  B.  St.  Luke. 
•Weiss,  B.  Life  of  Christ,  Eng.  Tr. 

*  Wellhausen,  J.  Sketch  of  the  History  of  Israel  and  Judah  (from  E. 

Britt.).     See  also  E^ Bi. 

*  Westcott  and  Hort.  The  New  Testament  in  Greek. 

*  Westcott.    The  Canon  of  the  New   Test.  ;    Inirod.  to  Study  of  the 

Gospel ;   The  Bible  in  the  Church  ;  Commentary  on  St.  John. 
Wiseman,  N.,  Cardinal.  Horcp  Syriacce  ;   Essays;  Lectures  on  the 
Connection  of  Science  with  Revealed  Religion. 

*  Wogue,  L.  Histoire  de  la  Bible  et  de  I'Exegese. 
'Workman,  G.  C.  Text  of  Jeremiah. 

Zenner,  J.  K.  On  Structure  of  the  Psalms  (German)  in  Zeitschrift 
fur  Kath.  Theologie,  1894-1904,  Innsbruck. 

*  Zimmer,  H.  The  Babylonian  and  Hebrew  Genesis,  Eng.  Tr. 

*  Zockler,  O.  Handbuch  d.  theol.  Wissenschaft. 


J8 


INDEX  OF  PRINCIPAL  NAMES. 


Aaron,  48,  63. 

Abbott,  E.  A.,  164,  168. 

Abdias,  see  Obadiah. 

Abelard,  218. 

Abimelech,  68. 

Abraham,  20,  22,  54,  64,  237. 

Acts  of  the  Apostles,  172-77. 

Adam,  236,  237,  241,  242,  247,  248, 

250. 
Aggeus,  see  Haggai. 
Akiba,  34,  39,  no. 
Alexander  the  Great,  117,  131. 
Ambrose,  St.,  15,  215. 
Amos,  58,  86,  96,  97. 
Antiochus  IV.,  117,  120. 
Apocalyptic  literature,  121,  144. 
Apocalypse  (Book  of  Revelation), 

161,  166,  168,  19799. 
Apollos,  195. 
Aristeas,  31. 
Artaxerxes,    I.    II.,   36,    84,    loi, 

123. 
Asaph,  loi,  103. 
Astruc,  45. 

Athanasius,  St.,  135,  195,  215. 
Augustine,  St.,  4,  7,  15,  18,  20,  21, 

23,   30.  41.   79.   104.   106.   13^. 
140,   215,    217,    220,    230,    232, 

233.  235.  240,  241. 

Bacon,  Roger,  34. 
Barnabas,  Epistle  of,  8,  150,  201. 
Baruch,  Book  of,  91,  92,  127,  211. 
Basil,  St.,  6,  190,  240,  241. 
Basilides,  150,  166,  179,  186. 
Batiffol,  155,  157,  159.    169,  196. 
Baur,  F.  C,  184,  185. 


Bellarmine,  41,  223,  224. 

Belshazzar,  118,  119. 

Bickell,  no,  in,  113. 

Billot,  41. 

Bonaccorsi,  157-59,  227-28,  252, 

264. 
Bonfrere,  44,  223. 
Bossuet,  45,  no,  140,  195. 

Cajetan,  141,  250. 

Calmet,  44,  68,  223. 

Canticles,  Book   of,  see   Song  of 

Solomon. 
Canus,  41. 
Cerinthus,  162,  163. 
Christ  in  the  Bible,  258-66. 
Chronicles,     Books     of     (Parali- 

pomenon),  76,  123-25. 
Chrysostom,   John,    St.,    15,    136, 

195.  215. 
Clement    of  Alexandria,    15,    31, 

165,  195,  208,  212,  214. 
Clement,  St.,  of  Rome,  i,  182, 193, 

201. 
Clement  VIII.,  Pope,  28. 
Clifford,  W.,  Bishop,  245. 
Colenso,  54. 
Coleridge,  S.  T.,  260. 
Colossians,  Epistle  to,  189-91. 
Corinthians,  Epistles  to,  187. 
Comely,  74,  91,  102,  107, 109,  in, 

n2,  121,  127,  135,  138. 
Cyprian,  St.,  2,  30,  134. 
Cyril,  St.,  of  Alexandria,  15,  215. 
Cyril,  St.,  of  Jerusalem,  5, 136, 194, 

215. 
Cyrus,  78,  80,  90,   118-20,  124. 

iS* 


275 


276 


INDEX 


Damasus,  St.,  30,  138. 

Daniel,  Book  of,  81,  95,  116-22. 

Darius,  Hystaspes,  6g,   120,  124  ; 

the  Mede,  iiS-20  ;  Nothus,  124. 
David,  36,  70-72,  77, 99,  101-5,1 14. 
Deborah,  68,  70. 
Demetrius  Phalereus,  31. 
Deuteronomy,  Book  of,  and  Deu- 

teronomist  (D),  49,  50,  52,   53, 

56,  61,  66,  68,  69,  72,  73,  75,  98. 
DiJderlein,  78. 
Driver,  37,  48,  56,  88,  90,  114,  116, 

121,  124. 

Eben  Ezra,  45,  78. 

Ecclesiastes,  Book  of,  35,  108  10. 

Ecclesiasticus  (Ben  Sira),  Book  of, 

36,  39,  77,  127. 
Elias  Levita,  37. 
Elihu,  112. 

Elijah,  58,  64,  86,  203,  205,  206. 
Elohist,  the  (E),  45,  47-50,  52-54, 

61-66,  105,  242,  247,  253. 
Enoch,  Book  of,  102,  121,  144. 
Ephesians,  Epistle  to,  185,  189-91. 
Esdras,  see  Ezra. 
Esther,  Book  of,  114-16. 
Estius,  221. 
Eugenius  IV.,  141. 
Eusebius,  5,  147,  153-55.  167,  178, 

182,  186,  198,  245. 
Evil  Merodach,  72. 
Ewald,  100,  no,  116. 
Exodus,  Book  of,  see  Pentateuch. 
Ezekiel,   Book  of,  46,  49,  50,  54, 

63,  69,  86,  92-95. 
Ezra  (Esdras),  36,  37,  39,  41,  69; 

Books  of,  123,  124. 

Ford,  Abbot,  224,  225. 
Franzelin,  Cardinal,  208,  223. 

Galatians,  Epistle  to,  174-76,  187. 

Galileo,  224,  255. 

Genesis,  Book  of,  49,  51,  57,  61, 

G4-66,  240-53  ;  see  Pentateuch. 
Gesenius,  in, 
Ginsburg,  33,  35,  no,  ni. 
Gospel  of  St.  John,  160-71,  264-66. 
Gospels,  Synoptic,  144-59,  263. 


Graf,  47. 

Gregory   the   Great,  St.,   22,   41, 

141. 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  St.,  136. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  St.,  6,  136,  241. 
Grotius,  108. 
Gunkel,  65,  247. 

Habakkuk,  Book  of,  96. 

Hammurabi,  48,  238. 

Harnack,  4,  158,  164, 171, 186, 191. 

Headlam,  177. 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to,  193-95,  256, 

258,  260. 
Hecataeus,  69. 
Heracleon,  165,  171,  180. 
Hermas,  8,  151,  201. 
Herodotus,  116,  119,  121. 
Hexateuch,  the,  see  Pentateuch. 
Hezekiah,  36,  73,  79,  82,  103,  107, 

113- 
Hippolytus,  St.,  34,  134,  151,  199. 
Hobbes,  T.,  40,  44. 
Hoberg,  51,  58,  250. 
Holiness,  Book  of  (H),  95. 
Holofernes,  129. 
Hoonacker,  van,  123. 
Hosea  (Osee),  58,  96,  97. 
HUgel,  von,  44,  52,  55,  56. 
Hummelauer,   von,    37,   42,   220, 

241-43,  245,  250-52,  254. 
Huxley,  T.  H.,  244. 

Ignatius  of  Antioch,  St.,  150,  161, 

164,  182,  191,  193. 
Ilgen,  46. 

Innocent  I.,  St.,  138. 
Irenaeus,    St.,  2,  8,  31,   37,    133, 

152,  154,  159,  162,  166,  171-73, 

182,  186,  198,  210. 
Isaac,  65. 
Isaiah,  64,  70,  77-87,  97,  259, 

Jacob,  64,  65. 

Jahwist,    the  (J.).   45-50,   52,   53, 

61-65,  103,  247,  249,  251,  253. 
James,  St.,  Epistle  of,  175,  195. 
Jason  of  Cyrene,  130. 
Jastrow,  247. 
Jerahmeel,  106. 


INDEX 


277 


Jeremiah,  Book  of,  46,  52,  6g,  75, 
83,  87-92,  97. 

Jerome,  St.,  17,  23,  30,  31,  34,  41, 
68,  74,  92,  108,  no,  116,  117, 
126,  128,  129,  130,  132,  136-40, 
14S,  158,  166,  173,  190,  193, 
195,  197,  217,  232,  240. 

Joash,  73. 

Job,  Book  of,  112,  113,  115. 

Joel,  Book  of,  97. 

John  the  Divine,  St.,  see  Apo- 
calypse. 

John,  St.,  Epistles  of,  161-63,  171, 
197,  264. 

John,  St.,  Gospel  of,  20,  54,  148- 
50,  160-71,  264-66. 

John  the  Elder,  147,  167,  171. 

Jonah,  Book  of,  97,  116. 

Joseph,  65,  67,  253. 

Josephus,  31,  35-37.  94-  "7.  ^73. 
209. 

Joshua,  Book  of,  36,  66,  254 ; 
see  Pentateuch  or   Hexateuch. 

Josiah,  47,  89. 

Judas  Maccabeus,  39,  130,  148. 

Jude,  St.,  Epistle  of,  102,  196. 

Judges,  Book  of,  67-70. 

Judith,  Book  of,  116,  129. 

Justin  Martyr,  135,  148,  164,  173, 
186. 

Juvenal,  189. 

Kautzsch,  I,  238. 

Kings,    Books  of,  65,  71-76 ;   see 

Books  of  Samuel. 
Koppe,  78. 
Kuenen,  47. 

Laban,  65. 

Lagrange,  51,  61,  62,  68,  70,  72, 

116,  122,  208,  224,  225,  251,  253, 

254. 
Lamentations,  Book  of,  91. 
Laynez,  29. 

Leo  XIIL,  Pope,  218,  224,  228. 
Lessius,  223. 
Leviticus,   Book  of,  51,  259;  see 

Pentateuch. 
Lightfoot,  147,  150,  152,  161,  164, 

ifc6,  191. 
Linus,  St.,  192. 


Logos,  the,  18,  62,  164,  171,  212- 

14,  264-66. 
Loisy,  A.,  112,  113,   124,   139-42, 

159,  168,  199,  202,  224. 
Lowth,  106,  III. 
Lucian,  189,  204. 
Luke,  St.,  Gospel  of,  see  Synoptic 

Gospels  and  Acts. 

Maccabees,  Books  of,  30,  40,  130- 

132  siq.,  142. 
Maistre,  de,  J.,  25, 
.Vlalachi,  Book  of,  97. 
Manen,  van,  179,  181,  187. 
Marcion,  151,  178,  i8i,  186,  192, 

240. 
Margoliouth,  loi,  107. 
Mariana,  223. 
Mark,  St.,  Gospel  of,  see  Synoptic 

Gospels. 
Masius,  41,  44. 

Matthew,  St.,  Gospel  of,  see  Sy- 
noptic Gospels. 
Meignan,  Cardinal,  6g,  122,  251. 
Melito,  St.,  135,  166. 
Merodach  Baladan,  79,  82. 
Messiah,  the,  72,  83,  86,  87,  90,  97, 

170, 189,  234,  237,  249,  263,  265. 
Micah  (Micheas),  Book  of,  96,  97. 
Mizraim,  106. 
Moore,  E.,  69. 
Mordecai,  114. 
Moses,  Books  of,  see  Pentateuch, 

Genesis,  etc. 
Muratori,  Canon  of,  151-52,   165, 

173,  182,  186,  193,  196. 

Nahum,  Book  of,  87,  96. 
Nebuchadnezzar,    100,    118,    120, 

129. 
Nehemiah,  Book  of,  123. 
Neubauer,  128. 
Newman,  J.  H.,  Cardinal,  6,  10, 12, 

no,  132,208,209,  213,  216,  239. 
Nisius,  228. 
Numbers,  Book  of,  see  Pentateuch. 

Obadiah  (Abdias),  96. 

Origcn,  5,  6,   10,    15,  23,  32,  88, 

no,  127,  133,  135,  181,  194,  214, 

229,  232,  243. 


278 


INDEX 


Paley,  183-84,  186. 

Papias,  147-48,  159,  161,  163. 

Pastoral  Epistles,  192-93. 

Paul,  St.,  6,  23,  26,  40,  73,  94,  146, 
151,  152,  156,  157,  163,  167, 
171-76  ;  Epistles  of,  as  a  whole, 
177-85  ;  severally,  185-95  ;  see 
also,  196, 200,  219,  222,  231,  239, 
258,  259,  263,  266. 

Pentateuch  or  Hexateuch,  44-61 ; 
62-67. 

Peter,  St.,  27,  146,  148,  152,  154, 
158, 171,  174-76, 186,  187;  Epis- 
tles of,  196,  209;  see  also,  263. 

Peter  the  Venerable,  34. 

Philemon,  Epistle  to,  189. 

Philippians,  Epistle  to,  191-92. 

Philo,  31,  35,  144.  209,  234. 

Philo  Byblius,  245. 

Plato,  18,  234,  236. 

Polycarp,  St.,  161,  163,  173,  182, 
186,  193,  196. 

Porphyry,  117. 

Prat,  116. 

Priestly  Code  (P.C.  or  P.),  47,  53, 
54,  61,  66,  93,  123,  240  seq.,  247, 

253- 
Proverbs,  Book  of,  107. 
Psalms,  Book  of,  99-106. 

Quincey,  de,  T.,  222. 

Renan,  E.,  no,  178,  208, 
Reuss,  46,  142. 

Revelation,    Book    of,    see   Apo- 
calypse. 
Romans,  Epistle  to,  185-87. 
Rose,  150,  158,  264. 
Ruth,  Book  of,  70,  113. 

Salmeron,  41. 

Samson,  67,  68. 

Samuel,  Books  of  (i,  2  Kings),  36, 

64,  68,  70-72. 
Sargon,  74,  79. 
Saul,  70,  203. 
Sayce,  56,  57,  62,  100,  in,  115, 

119,  120,  124,  130,  246. 
Schanz,  P.,  74,  230. 
Schmidt,  89. 
Schmiedel,  172,  185. 


Schrader,  74,  85,  246. 

Sennacherib,  79,  84. 

Severian,  241. 

Simon,  R.,  40,  45,  223, 

Sixtus  v..  Pope,  28. 

Smith,  G.,  246. 

Smith,  W.,  Archbishop,  60. 

Smith,  W.  R.,  80,  104. 

Solomon,  Books  of,  106-11,  113. 

Song  of  Solomon  (Canticles),  no, 

in. 
Sophonias,  see  Zephaniah. 
Spinoza,  44,  45,  88,  107,  117,  207. 
Susanna,  Story  of,  116,  134. 

Tacitus,  186. 

Tatian,  55,  56,  149.  165. 

Tertullian,  2,  3,  30,  44,  160,  173, 

181,  186,  194,  199. 
Theiner,  142. 

Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  107,  no. 
Theodoret,  15,  41,  215. 
Theodotus,  165. 
Thessalonians,  Epistles  to,  188. 
Thomas  Aquinas,  St.,  14,   15,  41, 

85,  102,  112,  217,  220,  221,  232, 

233.  240,  241,  247,  262. 
Thucydides,  18,  17C. 
Timothy,  Epistles  to,  192,  193. 
Titus,  Epistle  to,  192,  193. 
Tobit  (Tobias),  Book  of,  128. 

Valentinus,  151,  164. 

Vatke,  46. 

Vega,  A. ,  29. 

Vincent  of  Lerins,  St.,  4,  5,  7,  10. 

Vives,  L.,  31. 

Wellhausen,  J.,  47  seq.,  73. 
Wette,  de,  46. 

Wisdom,  Book  of,  126,  242. 
Wiseman,  Cardinal,  30,  243. 


Xenophon, 119. 
Xerxes,  114,  118. 

Zadok,  49,  50,  95. 
Zechariah(Zacharias),Bookof,96. 

Zephaniah  (Sophonias),   Book  of. 

96. 
Zerubbabel,  124,  129. 


THE 

WESTMINSTER     LIBRARY. 

A  Series  of  Manuals  for  Catholic 
Priests  and  Students. 

Edited  by  the  Right  Rev.  Mgr.  Bernard  Ward, 
President  of  St.  Edmund's  College,  and  the  Rev.  Herbert 
Thurston,  S.J. 

THE  TRADITION  OF  SCRIPTURE:  its  Origin, 
Authority  and  Interpretation.  By  the  Very  Rev. 
William  Barry,  D.D.,  Canon  of  St.  Chad'.s, 
Birmingham.     Crown  8vo,  3s.  6d.  net. 

THE  HOLY  EUCHARIST.  By  the  Right  Rev. 
John  Cuthbert  Hedley,  Bishop  of  Newport. 
Crown  8vo,  3s.  6d.  net. 

THE  LEGENDS  OF  THE  SAINTS:  an  Intro- 
duction to  Hagiography.  From  the  French  of 
Pere  H.  Delehaye,  S.J.,  Bollandist.  Translated 
by  Mrs.  V.  M.  Crawford.   Crown  8vo,  3s.  6d.  net. 

THE  PRIEST'S  STUDIES.  By  the  Very  Rev. 
Thomas  Scannell,  D.D.,  Canon  of  Southwark 
Cathedral,  Editor  of  The  Catholic  Dictionary. 
Crown  Svo,  3s.  6d.  net. 

The  following   Volumes  are  also  in  preparation  : — 

THE  CHRISTIAN  CALENDAR.  By  the  Rev. 
Herbert  Thurston,  S.J. 

THE  STUDY  OF  THE  FATHERS.  By  the  Rev. 
Dom  John  Chapman,  O.S.B. 

THE  ORIGINS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  By  the 
Right  Rev.  Mgr.  A.  S.  Barnes,  M.A. 

THE  BREVIARY.  By  the  Rev.  Edward  Myers, 
M.A. 

THE  INSTRUCTION  OF  CONVERTS.  By  the 
Rev.  Sydney  F.  Smith,  S.J. 

THE  MASS.  By  the  Rev.  Adrian  Fortescue, 
Ph.D.,  D.D. 


THE   ABERDEEN    UNIVERSITY   PRESS   LIMITED. 


/7^ 


^ 


BARRY,    W.F. 

^e  Tradition  of  Scripture. 


BS 

522 

>B3  . 


I